SC questions bar on trans persons as blood donors
The Supreme Court on Wednesday urged the Centre to consult experts for a revision of the country's blood donation guidelines as it questioned the rationale behind excluding transgender persons branding the community 'high risk'.
The bench of justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the guidelines issued by National Blood Transfusion Council (NBTC) in 2017 which prevented 'transgenders, men having sex with men (MSM) and female sex workers' from donating blood for being at 'high risk' for HIV, Hepatitis B or C infections.
'What is worrying me is are we going to brand all transgender persons as risk, thus, indirectly stigmatising the transgender community...this is something only experts can advise,' the court observed.
The Centre, represented by additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, said that the guidelines were not intended to stigmatise anyone but have been prepared with 'scientific temper' by NBTC which comprises doctors and experts in the field.
The court responded saying, 'What worries us is the element of discrimination. They have been isolated and excluded. Just think of something that such feeling does not come and health standards are not compromised.'
The court pointed out that with changing times, new technologies have emerged and there could be a way out to ensure any possibility of infections is checked and contained. 'The question we need to ask is, are we creating a segregated group. Already transgenders suffer from severe biases and prejudices. Does this (guidelines) not further it,' it observed.
While ASG Bhati said that she will go back to the experts on the court's suggestion, she argued that the guidelines must be viewed in light of the country's public health requirements and the available testing mechanisms across the nation.
'These guidelines must be seen from the perspective of public health as the idea is not to stigmatise anyone,' she said.
In response, justice Kant noted that the court was consciously refraining from expressing any personal views on the matter and does not intend to override the expertise of medical professionals.
The court, however, also recognised that transgender individuals already face significant bias and prejudice in society.
'Are we creating a kind of segregated group?...transgenders already suffer biases and prejudices,' justice Singh noted.
The judges observed that a solution must be found that ensures that the transgender community is not unfairly stigmatised, while also maintaining the necessary safety measures for blood donations.
'You please talk to them that what can be way out that as a community they are not stigmatised, and at the same time safety measures remain in force,' it orally observed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
LGBTQIA+ couples have right to find a family: Madras high court
Madras high court CHENNAI: Though Supreme Court has not legalised same-sex marriage, individuals can still form a family, Madras high court has said, adding: 'Marriage is not the sole mode to find a family. The concept of a 'chosen family' is now well settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence.' A division bench of Justices G R Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan made the observation on May 22, while setting at liberty a 25-year-old lesbian woman, who was forcefully separated from her partner and subjected to harassment by her family. 'Not every parent is like Justice Leila Seth. She could acknowledge and accept her son's sexual orientation,' the judges said. 'The mother of the detenue is no Leila Seth. We could understand her feelings and temperament. She wants her daughter to be like any other normal, heterosexual woman, get married and settle down in life. We endeavoured in vain to impress upon her that her daughter, being an adult, is entitled to choose a life of her own,' they added. Also, deprecating the use of the word 'queer' to identify non-heterosexual individuals, the judges said: 'We feel a certain discomfort in employing the expression 'queer'. Any standard dictionary defines this word as meaning strange or odd. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 가상화폐 3개이상 가지고 있다면 '이렇게'해라 크립토시그널 더 알아보기 Queering one's pitch means spoiling the show.' 'To a homosexual individual, his/her/their sexual orientation must be perfectly natural and normal. There is nothing strange or odd about such inclinations. Why then should they be called queer?' they asked. The court further placed on record that the jurisdictional police behaved in an insensitive manner in the issue by forcing the detenue to go with her parents. 'We censure the rank inaction on the part of police and the insensitivity shown by them. We hold that govt officials, in particular the jurisdictional police, have a duty to expeditiously and appropriately respond whenever complaints of this nature are received from the members of the LGBTQIA+ community,' the court said. The court then restrained the detenue's family members from interfering with her personal liberty and issued a writ of continuing mandamus to the jurisdictional police to afford adequate protection to the detenue and her partner who moved the habeas corpus petition.
Hans India
4 hours ago
- Hans India
VHP Urges Strict Enforcement of Animal Slaughter Ban Ahead of Bakrid in Coastal Karnataka
Mangaluru: In a move likely to sharpen existing tensions around religious practices and animal rights, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) has called for strict enforcement of existing laws that prohibit animal slaughter during Bakrid and other religious festivals in Karnataka. The demand, made during a press conference in Mangaluru, draws on provisions under state and central legislation, as well as Supreme Court rulings, to justify a complete clampdown on animal sacrifice and related transport. Citing the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Act, as well as the 1959 Animal Sacrifice Prohibition Act (Amended in 1975), VHP leaders insisted that animal sacrifice—referred to as qurbani—is expressly forbidden and punishable under law, regardless of religious context. They further urged authorities to monitor and, if needed, seal premises where animal slaughter occurs. The VHP press meet also referenced landmark judgments of the Supreme Court—including WP (Civil) No. 309/2003 and WP No. 1443/2008—to reinforce their appeal for zero tolerance toward violations. Citing concerns over unregulated animal transport, they called for checkpoints to be established across jurisdictions, especially near the Kerala border, to intercept illegal cattle movement during the lead-up to the festival. Sunil K.R., VHP's regional gau raksha (cow protection) head, praised recent efforts by the Mangaluru Police Commissioner, who intercepted an illegal consignment of 24 cattle being transported from Kerala near Talapady. He urged all police stations, district officials, and religious institutions to remain vigilant and ensure no cattle are gathered, housed, or slaughtered illegally, especially on or near places of worship. While the VHP maintains that their appeal is grounded in law and animal welfare, critics argue that such campaigns—especially timed around Islamic festivals—often exacerbate communal fault lines. The group's statement that even ordinary citizens have the legal right to intervene in suspected animal slaughter situations adds to concerns about vigilantism. This call for action comes at a time when communal tensions in coastal Karnataka have already seen periodic flare-ups. Observers say this new push by Hindutva groups will test the state's administrative balance between enforcing laws and safeguarding religious freedoms.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Philippines warns of health emergency as HIV cases soar
Manila: Philippine medical authorities on Tuesday warned of a looming " public health emergency " as HIV infections have soared this year, with young males especially hard-hit. On average, 57 new cases a day were tallied in the country of 117 million people over the first three months of 2025, a 50 percent jump from a year earlier, health department data shows. "We now have the highest number of new cases here in the Western Pacific," Health Secretary Ted Herbosa said in a video message released Tuesday. "What is frightening is, our youth make up many of the new cases," he said. "It would be in our interest to (declare) a public health emergency, a national emergency for HIV to mobilise the entire society, the whole of government to help us in this campaign to reduce the number of new HIV cases," Herbosa added. The health department said 95 percent of newly reported cases were male, with 33 percent aged 15-24 and 47 percent aged 25-34. The government did not explain the causes behind the surge, which it said had set back government attempts to hit global targets set by a United Nations campaign to end the AIDS epidemic by 2030. Under Philippine law, the president can declare a health emergency if an epidemic poses a threat to national security. The start of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 was the last time that was done. Just 55 percent of those living with HIV in the Philippines have been diagnosed, the health department said, while only 66 percent of those diagnosed are on life-saving antiretroviral therapy. Sexual contact remains the predominant mode of transmission, with the bulk of cases since 2007 attributed to men having sex with men. HIV cases have been on the rise in the Philippines since 2021, with 252,800 people estimated to be living with HIV in the country by the end of this year.
