“Are We Deepening Stigma?”: Supreme Court Questions Blanket Ban On Blood Donation By Transgender Persons, Gay Men & Sex Workers

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh took note of concerns surrounding discrimination, stigma, and the scientific rationale behind such exclusions, while urging the Union Government to reconsider its approach without compromising public health standards.

Appearing for the Centre, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati defended the restrictions, asserting that the guidelines were framed by medical experts of the National Blood Transfusion Council based on “risk viability.”

“This is not a matter of individual rights, but one of public health,” she submitted, adding, “There is no absolute or enforceable right to donate blood. The blood donated goes into public banks, and guidelines are aimed at ensuring a safe blood supply.”

She further contended that while petitioners referred to international practices, including those in European nations where such groups are not categorised as high-risk, “India has its own realities, including limitations in testing infrastructure.”

However, the Bench posed several pointed questions about the logic and fairness of the current policy.

Justice Surya Kant queried, “What if a patient is informed of the risk and still consents to receive such blood?”

When the ASG clarified that such discretion might apply in one-to-one or familial donations, the Court urged the government to consider a framework that ensures safety without institutionalising discrimination.

Justice NK Singh raised deeper concerns: “Are we branding all transgender persons as high-risk? Are we then indirectly stigmatizing these communities?” He warned against presumptions not backed by medical evidence, remarking, “Even so-called ‘normal’ individuals engage in high-risk behaviour. Why single out entire communities?”

When ASG Bhati explained that the guidelines simply reflected expert medical opinion, Justice Singh countered, “Aren’t we creating a segregated group? This only deepens stigma, biases, and societal prejudices.”

Justice Kant concluded by advising the Centre to engage with medical experts and explore solutions that uphold both safety and dignity. “This is best addressed through expert consultation. Please find a way forward where the community is not stigmatized, while all medical precautions remain intact.”