Supreme Court Raises Concern Over Blanket Ban on Transgenders as Blood Donors
Background of the Case
On May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of India expressed serious concern over the categorization of transgender persons as “risky” blood donors, questioning the constitutional validity of Sections 12 and 51 of the Blood Donor Guidelines, 2017.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was hearing a petition filed by Thangjam Santa Singh, a Manipur-based transgender and social activist, challenging the blanket ban on blood donation by transgender individuals, men having sex with men (MSM), and female sex workers. These guidelines, issued by the National Blood Transfusion Council (NBTC), classify these groups as “high risk” for infections like HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C.
Supreme Court’s Observations on Discrimination
The Supreme Court questioned the constitutionality and fairness of these guidelines, particularly the blanket exclusion of the entire transgender community. The bench remarked:
“Are we going to brand all transgenders as risky and stigmatise them? You cannot say that all transgenders are indulging in sexual activity.”
The judges emphasized that such generalizations perpetuate stigma and discrimination, especially for a group already suffering from social exclusion and prejudice.
They also suggested that modern screening technologies should be explored to ensure safe blood donation without discriminating against marginalized communities.
Centre’s Response and Health-Based Rationale
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, argued that the guidelines were medically driven and not intended to stigmatize any group. According to her, the NBTC developed these policies based on scientific evidence and global health practices, considering the safety of vulnerable patients, such as those with thalassemia who rely heavily on blood transfusions.
Bhati stated:
“Nobody can claim to have a fundamental right to donate blood. These guidelines must be seen from the perspective of public health.”
Despite this justification, the court expressed its dissatisfaction with the approach of generalizing risk and requested the Centre to find a balanced solution that protects both public health and the dignity of transgender persons.
.jpg)
The Constitutional Position of Transgender Persons in India
Recognition under NALSA v. Union of India (2014)
The landmark judgment in NALSA v. Union of India (2014) by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court marked a historic step toward recognition of transgender rights in India. The court ruled that:
-
Transgender persons have the right to self-identify their gender as male, female, or third gender.
-
They are entitled to equal protection of the law under Article 14 (Right to Equality).
-
Denial of rights on the basis of gender identity violates Articles 15 and 16 (Prohibition of Discrimination).
-
Article 21 guarantees the right to life with dignity, which includes the right to privacy, self-expression, and autonomy over one’s body and identity.
Statutory Protection: Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, further reinforced constitutional recognition by:
-
Prohibiting discrimination in education, employment, healthcare, and access to public goods.
-
Mandating that the government ensure inclusive policies and welfare measures for transgender persons.
-
Recognizing the right of transgender persons to reside in the community without exclusion.
Conclusion: Towards Inclusive Public Health Policy
The Supreme Court’s intervention in the matter of blood donation guidelines comes at a time when the country is working toward social and legal inclusion of transgender individuals. While public health considerations are vital, they must be carefully balanced with constitutional rights to dignity, non-discrimination, and equality.
This case highlights the need for reform in medical policies that inadvertently reinforce societal biases. As the apex court noted, with emerging technologies, more individualized screening mechanisms can replace blanket bans, ensuring both safe transfusion practices and equal rights.
The Centre has been given time to reconsider the guidelines. The next steps will be crucial in determining whether India will align its public health framework with constitutional morality and human rights.
Comments
Post a Comment