The Supreme Court on Wednesday urged the Central government to consult experts to revise guidelines framed in 2017, which ban blood donation by transgender persons and sex workers [Thangjam Santa Singh @ Santa Khurai v. Union of India & Others]..A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh said that the same was necessary to strike a balance between public health concerns and the risk of stigmatising the transgender community."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. You please and go to 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..The Court was hearing a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of clauses 12 and 51 of the Guidelines on Blood Donor Selection and Blood Donor Referral, 2017, which classify transgender persons, gay men and female sex workers as high-risk for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS), and ban them from donating blood. It initially observed,"Obviously the chances of infection are much (in case of donation by transgender), but..."It went on to express concern that these guidelines might label all transgender people as risky and indirectly stigmatise the community..Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union of India, argued that the guidelines must be viewed in light of the country's public health requirements and the available testing mechanisms across the nation. She emphasised the need to consider India's unique realities when addressing this matter."We have to look at Indian reality. What are the mechanisms of testing available across the length and breadth of country. It is only the guideline that we have issued...it is really not to violate any individual rights," she argued..She said that the 2017 guidelines are based on scientific temper and reflect the best available medical evidence aimed at safeguarding public health. The intention, she clarified, was not to stigmatise any group, but to rely on expert-led policy.In response, Justice Surya Kant noted that the Court was consciously refraining from expressing any personal views on the matter. He emphasised that the judiciary does not intend to override the expertise of medical professionals and that such issues are best addressed through expert consultation."That is why we aren't not expressing our opinions. We don't want to superimpose ourselves as experts," he noted..The Court 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.In light of this, the Court directed the ASG to consult with experts, stating that only they can provide the necessary guidance..[Read Live Coverage]
