New Delhi, August 2: The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Union Government concerning a petition. It challenges the constitutional validity of the 2017 Guidelines on Blood Donor Selection and Blood Donor Referral. These guidelines, issued by the National Blood Transfusion Council (NBTC) and the National Aids Control Organisation (NACO). This currently bar gay men and transgender individuals from blood donation.
Background
The petition, filed by gay author Sharif D. Rangnekar. It argues that the 2017 guidelines infringe on the fundamental rights to equality, dignity, and life of LGBTQ+ individuals. This includes female sex workers. The bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and including Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. They have agreed to examine the issue. Advocate Rohin Bhatt represented the petitioner.
The Court, while issuing notice, has tagged this petition with a pending case, Santa Khurai v. Union of India, which raises similar questions. In that case, the Centre has stated that there is substantial evidence showing that transgender persons, men who have sex with men, and female sex workers are at higher risk for HIV, Hepatitis B, or C infections. The petitioners in both cases challenge the inclusion of these groups in the ‘at risk’ category, rather than the exclusion of individuals with actual risks.
Guidelines
The 2017 guidelines, under Serial No. 12, permanently ban transgender people, sex workers, and men who have sex with men from donating blood due to their perceived risk for HIV. The petition argues that this exclusion is arbitrary and creates an ‘affected class’ out of these groups.
The plea highlights that many countries, such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada, have revised their blood donation rules to allow gay men to donate blood, reflecting advances in medical technology and blood screening. The petitioner contends that a total ban is unreasonable given these developments.
The petition also references the historical context of such bans, noting that they originated during the 1983 HIV epidemic in the USA, when blood transfusions were identified as a transmission route for HIV. At that time, bans were imposed on men who had sex with men and other groups perceived to be at higher risk.
Recent result
A recent press release by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare highlighted the increasing demand for blood transfusions and the need to dispel myths around blood donation to encourage more donors. The petitioner argues that this demand underscores the importance of revising exclusionary guidelines.
The petitioner seeks a declaration from the Supreme Court that clauses 12 and 51 of the 2017 guidelines are discriminatory and unconstitutional. The petition requests the creation of new guidelines that allow men who have sex with men to donate blood under reasonable restrictions. Additionally, the petitioner calls for public awareness campaigns, sensitization programs, and changes to medical curricula to reflect the new policies.
Requests
Petitioner’s Requests:
- Declare clauses 12 and 51 of the 2017 guidelines discriminatory and unconstitutional for excluding men who have sex with men from donating blood.
- Direct the Union Government to create guidelines that allow men who have sex with men to donate blood with reasonable restrictions.
- Implement sensitization programs for handling blood donations from men who have sex with men without invasive questioning.
- Conduct public campaigns to educate society about risky behaviours and the new guidelines.
- Update medical school curricula to sensitise students to the fact that men who have sex with men can donate blood.
- Pass any other orders or directions the Court deems appropriate.
