During the hearing of pleas challenging the blanket ban on blood donations by transgender persons, gay men, and sex workers, the Supreme Court on Tuesday urged the Union Government to consult medical experts on revising the guidelines to eliminate discrimination without compromising on safety protocols.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter. Justice Singh expressed serious concerns regarding the stigmatizing impact of the current rules. Addressing Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, he remarked,

“What worries me is—are we going to brand all transgenders as risky, thereby indirectly stigmatizing these communities? Unless there is medical evidence showing a direct link between transgender persons and such diseases, you cannot assume all are engaged in high-risk activities. Even ‘normal’ persons may engage in such activities.”

In response to the ASG’s submission that the National Blood Transfusion Council (NBTC) guidelines classify these categories as high-risk, Justice Singh questioned whether such classification leads to further marginalization.

“Aren’t we creating a segregated group? This only reinforces stigma, bias, and prejudice.”

Justice Kant emphasized the need for expert-led solutions.

“Please engage with medical experts so the community does not feel targeted or excluded, while ensuring that necessary precautions for public health remain intact,” he told Bhati.

The Legal Challenge

The petitioners have challenged the “Guidelines on Blood Donor Selection and Blood Donor Referral, 2017”, issued by the NBTC and the National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) under the Health Ministry. Specifically, Clauses 12 and 51 classify transgender persons, gay men, and female sex workers as “high-risk” for HIV/AIDS, effectively disqualifying them from donating blood.

Three petitions are currently pending before the apex court. The petitioners include LGBTQ+ community members:

• Sharif D Rangnekar, author and former journalist

• Thangjam Santa Singh, activist

• Harish Iyer, activist

In its affidavit in Singh’s case, the Centre has maintained that there is substantial scientific evidence indicating that transgender persons, men who have sex with men (MSM), and female sex workers face higher risks of contracting HIV, Hepatitis B, or C. It argues that the donor exclusion policy, developed by the NBTC (a body comprising medical and scientific experts), is evidence-based and rooted in public health concerns, not individual rights.

On the contrary, the petitioners argue that the 2017 guidelines violate fundamental rights to equality, dignity, and life. They contend that the exclusion is rooted in outdated prejudices and is neither reasonable nor backed by current scientific understanding.

They highlight that many countries—such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada—have reformed similar bans, permitting gay men to donate blood under updated protocols. With significant advancements in blood screening technologies, they argue, the current Indian approach is obsolete and discriminatory.

In Sharif D Rangnekar’s petition, a plea has also been made for revised guidelines that permit gay men to donate blood under reasonable restrictions. It also calls for public awareness campaigns about risky behavior and updated norms, along with reforms in medical education to sensitize future doctors about the rights and realities of LGBTQ+ individuals.

Case Title: Thangjam Santa Singh @ Santa Khurai vs Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 275/2021 (with connected matters)