The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking mandatory Nucleic Acid Amplification Testing (NAT) in all blood banks across India to ensure infection-free blood supply. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said decisions on medical testing protocols should be taken by domain experts and directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the health secretaries of States and Union Territories.
During the hearing, the bench made it clear that the court was not equipped to decide technical questions related to medical science. Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked that the judiciary should not assume expertise in areas that require specialised knowledge.
“We are definitely not experts on the subject… why should we pretend that we know medical science,” the CJI observed.
The petition had been filed by the Delhi-based NGO Sarvesham Mangalam Foundation, which sought directions to the Union government and the states to introduce mandatory NAT screening in all blood banks to detect Transfusion Transmissible Infections (TTIs) such as HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, malaria, and syphilis.
While declining to issue directions, the court asked the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation to the health secretaries of all states and Union Territories. The bench said the authorities could then examine the issue with the assistance of medical experts and take an appropriate decision.
The court also noted that the relief sought involved significant financial implications, observing that each state has its own fiscal constraints. In the absence of specialised knowledge on the subject, the bench said it was satisfied that the directions sought in the petition could not be granted by the court.
During the proceedings, the Chief Justice also questioned the nature of public interest litigation and remarked to the petitioner’s counsel:
“Do you think PILs are not funded from abroad. Do you think so?”
Earlier, on February 25, the Supreme Court had asked the petitioner to provide detailed information about the cost of NAT testing and whether the necessary infrastructure was available in government hospitals across India, particularly so that economically weaker patients could access the facility.
The bench had asked advocate A. Velan, appearing for the petitioner, to clarify the financial implications and feasibility of implementing NAT screening nationwide.
The petition argued that the “Right to Safe Blood” should be recognised as an intrinsic part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution. It claimed that failure to implement standardised testing procedures was exposing patients to serious health risks.
The NGO highlighted the vulnerability of thalassemia patients, who require blood transfusions every 15 to 20 days to survive. According to the petition, inadequate screening of donated blood has turned these life-saving transfusions into a potential health risk.
The plea described thalassemia as an inherited disorder in which the body cannot produce sufficient haemoglobin, the protein responsible for transporting oxygen in red blood cells. It argued that India, described in the petition as the “thalassemia capital of the world,” needs stronger blood safety protocols and uniform testing standards.
To support its claims, the petition cited several incidents across the country where infections were allegedly linked to blood transfusions.
According to the plea, in 2025 at least six thalassemia-affected children in Madhya Pradesh tested HIV-positive after receiving transfusions at Satna District Hospital. In Jharkhand, five children were reportedly infected with HIV following transfusions at Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa in the same year.
The petition also referred to an incident in Uttar Pradesh in 2023, where 14 children contracted hepatitis and HIV after receiving blood transfusions at a medical college.
Despite these concerns, the Supreme Court declined to intervene, emphasising that decisions on medical protocols and testing requirements should be taken by public health authorities and domain experts rather than through judicial directions.
