The Supreme Court of India recently raised serious concerns about the blanket ban on blood donations by transgender persons, gay men, and sex workers, questioning the discriminatory nature of the guidelines issued by the National Blood Transfusion Council (NBTC) and the National AIDS Control Organization. These guidelines, part of the "Guidelines on Blood Donor Selection and Blood Donor Referral, 2017," classify these groups as high-risk for HIV/AIDS and prohibit them from donating blood.
Read Also:- Non-Public Servant Can Be Convicted For Abetting Offences Under Prevention Of Corruption Act
During the hearing, a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh highlighted the stigmatizing impact of such guidelines. Justice Singh questioned,
"What is worrying me is, are we going to brand all transgenders as risky and thus indirectly stigmatize these communities? Unless you can show with some medical evidence that there is some kind of link between transgenders and these diseases."
The court further urged the Union government to seek expert opinions on eliminating this discriminatory aspect without compromising medical safety. Justice Kant emphasized the need for expert guidance, stating,
"You please have a talk with them so that as a community, they are not stigmatized. At the same time, all medical precautions can remain in force."
Read Also:-Justice Bela Trivedi to Retire Early: Last Working Day in Supreme Court Set for May 16
The matter was brought to the Supreme Court through three separate petitions filed by LGBTQ+ community members, including Sharif D Rangnekar, Thangjam Santa Singh, and Harish Iyer. These petitioners argued that the guidelines violate their fundamental rights to equality, dignity, and life. They claimed that the ban is based on outdated perceptions from the 1980s, despite significant advancements in blood screening technology.
On the other hand, the Central Government, in its affidavit, defended the ban, stating that transgender persons, men having sex with men, and sex workers are at higher risk for HIV, Hepatitis B, and C infections. It maintained that the guidelines were developed based on scientific evidence by the NBTC, which comprises medical and scientific experts.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Scraps 100-Point System for Senior Advocate Designation: Key Reasons Explained
The petitioners, however, contended that the guidelines were arbitrary and unscientific. They pointed out that several countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada, have revised their blood donation rules to allow gay men to donate blood under specific conditions. They also sought public awareness campaigns and changes in medical education to promote sensitivity toward LGBTQ+ individuals.
The Supreme Court’s observations bring into focus the delicate balance between ensuring medical safety and upholding the fundamental rights of marginalized communities. The case continues to be under consideration.
Case Title: THANGJAM SANTA SINGH @ SANTA KHURAI Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 275/2021 (and connected matters)
