Centre Defends Blood Donation Policy Amid Supreme Court Scrutiny

The Indian government has defended its existing blood donation policy that excludes individuals identified as belonging to “high-risk groups,” citing the need to safeguard against HIV and other transfusion-transmitted infections (TTIs). The stance comes in response to the Supreme Court’s call for a reconsideration of the policy in light of evolving medical advancements and global practices.

In an affidavit filed before a bench led by Justice Surya Kant, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare stated:
“Allowing blood donations from individuals statistically linked with a higher prevalence of TTIs would proportionately increase systemic risks and undermine the integrity and reliability of the national blood supply chain. No modification or relaxation of the guidelines is warranted at this time.”

The government described the deferment of high-risk categories as both “reasonable and essential,” arguing that the guidelines are rooted in internationally accepted scientific research, established public health principles, and robust epidemiological evidence. It further warned that any relaxation would jeopardize the safety of the national blood supply.

Expert Review and Findings

The affidavit followed the Court’s oral observation in May urging a review of the 2017 Guidelines for Blood Donor Selection and Referral. Acting on the directive, the Directorate General of Health Services convened an expert committee on May 29, which unanimously concluded that no policy changes were required.

The panel noted that even the most advanced testing technologies cannot guarantee detection of infections during the “window period,” when diseases like HIV remain undetectable. Accordingly, the continued exclusion of high-risk groups was described as a “prudent, precautionary, and evidence-based measure” consistent with global standards.

“Notwithstanding the availability of modern testing technologies, no diagnostic test can provide a 100% guarantee, particularly during the window period. Hence, exclusion of high-risk categories remains necessary,” the affidavit stated.

Epidemiological Basis, Not Stigma

The Centre emphasized that the restrictions are grounded in data, not prejudice. Citing multiple international studies, the affidavit highlighted a significantly higher prevalence of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections among transgender persons, particularly transgender women.

“Accordingly, deferment is based on epidemiological evidence and public health considerations reflecting a higher incidence of TTIs within such population groups,” it said.

The government also pointed out that while some Western nations have eased restrictions, several Asian countries—including Sri Lanka, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, and China—continue to maintain similar policies. India, it argued, must frame its regulations in line with its unique epidemiological profile, healthcare infrastructure, and diagnostic capacities.

Constitutional and Legal Dimensions

Framing its stance as constitutionally mandated, the Centre invoked Article 47 of the Constitution, which places an obligation on the State to protect public health.

“The continued adherence to the precautionary principle in matters relating to blood safety is not only justified but constitutionally required,” the affidavit asserted.

Court’s Concern Over Stigma

The affidavit was filed in response to petitions, including one by Manipur-based transgender activist Thangjam Santa Singh in 2021, challenging the constitutionality of the 2017 guidelines. The petitioners argue that the exclusions perpetuate stereotypes, discriminate on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation, and violate Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

During a hearing on May 14, the Supreme Court questioned the rationale of blanket restrictions on entire communities. “Are we going to brand all transgenders as risky and stigmatise them? You cannot say that all transgenders are indulging in sexual activity,” the bench observed, cautioning against deepening existing prejudice by creating a “segregated group.”