The Supreme Court of India has taken a pivotal step in addressing a longstanding issue surrounding the ban on blood donations from members of the LGBTQ+ community and sex workers. The Court's review of this policy underscores the importance of equal rights and the elimination of discriminatory practices against marginalized groups.

This article critically examines the background of the blood donation ban, the legal challenges it faces, and the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions, particularly focusing on Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. We also consider global perspectives on similar bans and judicial approaches to discrimination in public health policies, emphasizing the need for evidence-based practices that respect individual rights and public health standards.

Introduction
Blood donation has long been viewed as a noble act that can save lives. However, discriminatory policies barring certain groups—especially LGBTQ+ individuals and sex workers—from donating blood persist, based on outdated public health concerns and societal prejudices. These bans often assume heightened risk without evaluating individual behavior or applying scientifically backed screening methods. Recently, the Supreme Court of India has taken up the review of this ban, sparking a nationwide debate on the legal, ethical, and social dimensions of blood donation restrictions.

This article explores the judicial and statutory landscape surrounding this issue, highlighting landmark judgments and key constitutional principles that guide anti-discrimination in India. It also assesses international frameworks and evolving public health standards that are beginning to recognize the outdated nature of blanket bans on blood donations.

Background of the Ban

The policy banning blood donations from certain groups has its roots in the early days of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, where members of the LGBTQ+ community and sex workers were perceived as high-risk categories. This resulted in a blanket restriction on blood donations from these groups, based on fears of transmitting HIV and other blood-borne diseases. India's policies were largely modeled after Western standards, which also maintained similar prohibitions until recent years. However, with advancements in blood screening technology and a better understanding of HIV transmission, countries have begun reevaluating these bans.

In India, the National Blood Policy 2002, which governs blood donations, reflects these prohibitions. However, members of the LGBTQ+ community, sex workers, and human rights activists argue that such a blanket ban is rooted in stereotypes, unscientific, and violates fundamental rights under the Constitution.

Legal Issues and Relevant Statutes

• Article 14 - Right to Equality Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law within the territory of India. The Supreme Court, in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018 SCC OnLine SC 1350), recognized that discrimination based solely on sexual orientation is unconstitutional. The blanket ban on LGBTQ+ individuals donating blood arguably contravenes Article 14 by unfairly targeting individuals based on their sexual orientation, irrespective of their actual health status or risky behavior.
   
• Article 15 - Prohibition of Discrimination Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Following the Johar judgment, a prohibition on blood donations based on sexual orientation or profession (in the case of sex workers) appears to fall within the scope of discrimination under Article 15. Moreover, the Court's ruling in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018 13 SCC 1), which condemned exclusionary practices in public spaces, further supports the stance against such discriminatory policies.
   
• Article 21 - Right to Life and Personal Liberty Article 21, which ensures the right to life and personal liberty, has been expansively interpreted to include the right to dignity and the right to health. The Court, in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017 10 SCC 1), emphasized the right to privacy and autonomy over personal choices. The exclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals and sex workers from blood donations intrudes upon their dignity and restricts their ability to contribute to society in a meaningful way, violating their personal liberty without legitimate grounds.

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act explicitly prohibits discrimination against transgender individuals in various domains, including healthcare. A blanket ban on blood donations from transgender individuals stands in stark contrast to the Act's mandate, infringing upon their rights to equal treatment and non-discrimination.

Relevant Case Law
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
The Supreme Court in this landmark decision held that sexual orientation is an intrinsic aspect of identity and any discrimination based on sexual orientation amounts to a violation of fundamental rights. This case forms the bedrock for challenging the blood donation ban, as it reaffirms the right of LGBTQ+ individuals to equal treatment and protection under the law.

National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (NALSA) (2014 5 SCC 438)
In this case, the Supreme Court recognized transgender persons as a third gender, establishing the right to self-identity and equal treatment under the law. Applying the NALSA principles, a policy that discriminates against transgender individuals on the grounds of potential risk stereotypes disregards their individuality and health status, contravening their constitutional rights.

Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Privacy Case)
The Court's interpretation of privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 provides a strong basis for contesting intrusive and discriminatory bans. The Court affirmed that individual dignity and privacy, especially in personal health matters, cannot be compromised without compelling reasons.

Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala
In the Sabarimala temple entry case, the Court declared that exclusionary practices based on outdated beliefs violate fundamental rights and emphasized the need for inclusivity. This judgment supports arguments against the blood donation ban, as exclusion based on profession or sexual orientation mirrors the same type of discriminatory practices struck down in this case.

International Comparisons and Global Trends
Countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada have recently amended their blood donation policies, shifting from indefinite bans on LGBTQ+ individuals to deferral periods based on individual risk assessments. In 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reduced the deferral period for gay and bisexual men to three months, while the United Kingdom adopted an individual-risk-based approach in 2021, allowing donations from LGBTQ+ individuals who meet specific screening criteria.

These changes reflect a global shift toward evidence-based policies that prioritize individual risk factors over categorical bans, acknowledging advancements in screening technologies and the need for inclusive policies. The World Health Organization (WHO) has also emphasized that blood donation guidelines should be non-discriminatory and based on scientifically valid criteria.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Petitioner's Argument
The petitioners argue that the blanket ban is rooted in prejudice and lacks a scientific basis. They emphasize that current medical screening techniques, such as nucleic acid tests, effectively detect blood-borne pathogens, making a broad prohibition unnecessary. They contend that the ban violates Articles 14, 15, and 21, and call for an individual risk assessment approach rather than a blanket restriction.

Respondent's Argument
Government agencies argue that the ban is necessary to maintain public health and ensure the safety of the blood supply. They maintain that the high-risk categorization is based on statistical prevalence and emphasize the need to prioritize safety over inclusivity.

Analysis and Conclusion
The Supreme Court's review of the ban on blood donations from LGBTQ+ individuals and sex workers presents an opportunity to balance public health with constitutional mandates of equality and dignity. As highlighted by both domestic and international standards, blanket bans are increasingly viewed as discriminatory and unscientific, especially when advancements in blood screening have significantly minimized risks.

A favorable judgment would not only align India with global standards but also reaffirm the rights of marginalized groups to participate equally in societal responsibilities. The Supreme Court's approach in this matter will likely shape future public health policies, emphasizing a need for inclusivity while ensuring safety through evidence-based guidelines rather than exclusionary practices.

References:

1. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1350.
2. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, 2018 13 SCC 1.
3. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, 2017 10 SCC 1.
4. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, 2014 5 SCC 438.
5. The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.