The Union Government informed the Supreme Court on March 12, 2026, that it will maintain a permanent ban on blood donations from transgender persons, men who have sex with men (MSM), and female sex workers.
Despite a court-mandated review, the Centre argued that these groups remain “statistically high-risk” for infections like HIV and Hepatitis. Petitioners, led by activist Thangjam Santa Singh, contend the ban is unscientific and stigmatizing, arguing that modern Nucleic Acid Testing (NAT) should determine blood safety instead of a donor’s identity.
Public Health vs. Individual Rights
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre, stated that experts had revisited the 2017 National Blood Transfusion Council (NBTC) guidelines and concluded that diluting them would be “injurious to the recipients.”
The government’s stance is that in the field of medical biology, the right of a recipient to receive safe blood far outweighs an individual’s right to donate.
“Even a one percent chance of infection should not be there,” the bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, observed, expressing reluctance to interfere with expert medical opinions that protect vulnerable patients in public hospitals.
The Science of Stigma
The core of the legal challenge lies in whether the ban is based on current science or outdated stereotypes. Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the guidelines ignore the “window period” of modern tests, which can detect viruses with over 99% accuracy within days.
She pointed out the inherent contradiction in the policy: a heterosexual person with multiple partners is not barred, yet a transgender person or a gay man in a long-term monogamous relationship is permanently excluded.
“The risky behavior is the unprotected act, not the identity,” Kothari argued, noting that the current rules treat entire communities as inherently “diseased,” a view the petitioners say violates the landmark Navtej Singh Johar and NALSA judgments.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
At The Logical Indian, we believe that progress is measured by how we treat our most marginalized. While the safety of the blood supply is a legitimate concern, a blanket ban based on who a person is rather than what they do reinforces social exclusion.
India faces a chronic blood shortage, and excluding healthy, willing donors based on identity-based “risk” feels like a missed opportunity to modernize our healthcare with empathy.
