New Delhi: In a crucial hearing on petitions challenging the blanket prohibition on blood donations by transgender persons, gay men, and sex workers, the Supreme Court urged the Union government to consult medical experts to explore how the “discriminatory elements” of existing guidelines can be revised without compromising public health and safety.
A bench comprising justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh questioned the scientific basis and social consequences of the 2017 "Guidelines on Blood Donor Selection and Referral" issued by the National Blood Transfusion Council (NBTC) and the National AIDS Control Organization (NACO), under the Health Ministry.
Clauses in the guidelines classify transgender persons, men who have sex with men (MSM), and female sex workers as “high-risk” for HIV and permanently bar them from donating blood.
Justice Singh raised a pointed concern with Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre:
“What is troubling me is this, are we branding an entire community as risky? Are we, in effect, institutionalising stigma? Unless backed by clear medical data, you cannot assume all transgender persons or gay men engage in risky behaviours. Even heterosexual people can and do, ”Justice Singh said.
When Bhati defended the guidelines as being based on scientific and medical assessments of risk by the NBTC, Justice Singh countered, “Aren’t we inadvertently reinforcing prejudice and social exclusion by forming a segregated group under these guidelines?”
Justice Surya Kant emphasized the need for balance between precaution and inclusion, remarking:
“Please engage with domain experts. It’s essential that communities are not stigmatized, even as we uphold the necessary safeguards for medical safety.”
The case stems from three separate petitions filed by LGBTQ+ advocates author and journalist Sharif D. Rangnekar, activist Thangjam Santa Singh, and activist Harish Iyer all asserting that the 2017 donor guidelines violate fundamental rights to equality, dignity, and life.
The petitioners argue that the existing norms are not only scientifically outdated but also reflect prejudices rooted in the HIV/AIDS panic of the 1980s.
“With modern blood screening technologies, the blanket bans are no longer justified,” the pleas contend. They cite reforms in countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada, where donation rules have been liberalized based on individual behaviour rather than group identity.
In his petition, Rangnekar has also suggested that updated donor policies should be accompanied by public awareness campaigns and revised medical curricula to combat stereotypes and educate future healthcare professionals.
In response, the Centre filed an affidavit in Singh’s case defending the NBTC guidelines, stating that there is "ample scientific evidence" to support the categorisation of these groups as high-risk for HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C infections. The affidavit stresses that the decision falls under executive policymaking and should be viewed through the lens of public health imperatives, not just individual rights.
The matter remains under active consideration, and the bench has asked the Union to return with inputs from independent medical experts, signalling the Court’s intention to balance scientific caution with constitutional values.
The case has wide-reaching implications for LGBTQ+ rights, health policy, and anti-discrimination jurisprudence in India.
