Safeguarding Blood Transfusions from HIV Contamination

Every time a patient receives a blood transfusion, they are placing an enormous degree of trust in the healthcare system – trust that the blood they receive is safe, tested, and free from infection. In India, where millions of units of blood are transfused every year, that trust rests on a legal and policy framework designed specifically to prevent HIV and other infections from passing from donor to recipient. Understanding how that framework operates – and where its gaps remain – is essential for anyone studying law in the context of vulnerable groups and public health.

Why blood transfusion is a legal concern in HIV law 🔗

HIV is transmitted through direct contact with infected blood, and blood transfusion represents one of the most direct possible routes of transmission. When a person receives blood infected with HIV, they are not exposed to a risk – they are nearly certain to contract the virus. Unlike sexual transmission, where a person has agency, a transfusion recipient relies entirely on others to ensure the blood they receive is safe. This creates a clear legal and ethical obligation on the state, blood banks, and medical institutions to guarantee the safety of donated blood.

The concern is far from hypothetical. According to data obtained by activist Chetan Kothari through a Right to Information plea, at least 2,234 people self-reported contracting HIV through blood transfusions over a seventeen-month period in India. While NACO maintained these were not all scientifically verified transfusion cases, the scale of the problem demanded a robust legal response – and that is precisely what India has attempted to build over the last three decades.

The evolution of India’s blood safety framework 🔗

India’s journey toward safe blood transfusions began with a judicial push, not a legislative one. In 1996, the Supreme Court ruled in Common Cause v. Union of India directing the government to overhaul the blood transfusion system entirely. The court banned professional (paid) blood donation – a major source of contaminated blood at the time – and mandated the creation of regulatory bodies to govern blood services. This led to the establishment of the National Blood Transfusion Council (NBTC) and State Blood Transfusion Councils (SBTCs).

Access to safe blood is mandated by law, and NACO bears primary responsibility for the blood safety programme. The specific policy target set by NACO is to reduce transfusion-associated HIV transmission to 0.5 percent while ensuring safe and quality blood is available within one hour of requirement in any health facility.

The National Blood Policy, 2002 🔗

The National Blood Policy was formulated in 2002 to provide a structured framework for safe and efficient blood transfusion services across India. The policy promotes voluntary, non-remunerated blood donation and lays down a system for well-coordinated, networked blood transfusion services. Its central objective is to ensure that the blood supply is both adequate and safe for all patients who require it.

A defining feature of this policy is the mandatory screening of all donated blood for five transfusion-transmissible infections (TTIs): HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, Syphilis, and Malaria. Under NACP-III, mandatory testing of each unit of blood for these infections was made a cornerstone of the blood safety programme, intended to prevent any infected unit from reaching a recipient. Blood banks operating without conducting these tests are in direct violation of national policy and licensing requirements under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

The policy also advocates mandatory notification of reactive blood donors – meaning a blood bank must inform a donor if their blood tests positive for any TTI. Blood banks are required to obtain written consent from donors at the time of donation, including consent as to whether the donor wishes to be informed of abnormal test results. Before notifying a donor of a reactive result, the blood bank must repeat the test using a second method or duplicate assay to eliminate false positives – protecting the donor from the serious social consequences of an incorrect result.

What HIV testing of blood actually involves 🔗

Understanding how blood is tested for HIV clarifies both the strength and the limitations of the current system.

The standard: ELISA testing 🔗

Most blood banks in India use ELISA (Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay) to test for HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C – the technology mandated by the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO). ELISA works by detecting antibodies that the human body produces in response to HIV infection. Third- and fourth-generation ELISA kits can detect both antigens (the virus itself) and antibodies, reducing the window period – the time between infection and a detectable result – to approximately three weeks. However, not all blood banks in India have upgraded to the newer kit generations.

The problem of the window period 🔗

The window period is the most significant technical limitation in HIV screening of blood. The current mandatory screening strategy in India does not address the problem of window period infections – a critical gap. If a donor is in the window period at the time of donation, their blood will test negative even if the virus is present. That blood can then be issued to a recipient and cause HIV transmission despite the blood bank having followed all required protocols.

HIV is notably stable under refrigerated and frozen storage conditions, making infected blood components highly infectious even after storage. This means that a unit of blood collected during the window period and stored for later use remains dangerous throughout its shelf life.

Nucleic Acid Testing (NAT): the next layer of protection 🔗

Nucleic Acid Testing (NAT) directly detects the genetic material of the HIV virus – rather than the body’s antibody response to it – which allows detection much earlier in the infection process. NAT narrows the window period of HIV detection significantly, reducing the detection gap from around three weeks with ELISA to as few as seven days. In countries like the United States and United Kingdom, NAT has dramatically reduced – and in some cases virtually eliminated – transfusion-transmitted HIV cases.

However, NAT is not mandatory under current Indian guidelines. It is increasingly used in larger and better-equipped blood banks, but its higher cost – adding approximately ₹1,000-₹1,500 to the per-unit expense – has slowed universal adoption, particularly in government and rural blood banks. A 2024 report indicated that some states are planning to mandate NAT testing for patients with blood disorders like thalassaemia who require frequent transfusions, recognising that this population faces disproportionately high exposure risk.

Donor confidentiality within the blood testing framework 🔗

A critical tension in blood donation law is between the public health need to test and the individual donor’s right to privacy. The law has worked to resolve this tension by building confidentiality protections directly into the testing process.

The HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 🔗

The HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 came into force on September 10, 2018 as central legislation protecting the rights of persons living with or affected by HIV. It represents India becoming the first country in South Asia to statutorily prohibit discrimination against people with HIV. The Act has direct implications for the blood donation context.

Under the Act, conducting an HIV test without informed consent is unlawful. However, the Act contains an important carve-out relevant to blood banks: informed consent is not required when a licensed blood bank screens donated blood anonymously and not for the purpose of identifying a specific individual’s HIV status. The test at a blood bank is conducted to determine whether the blood unit is safe for transfusion – not to diagnose the donor. This distinction allows blood banks to screen all units without needing to obtain a separate HIV testing consent for every donation, while still operating within the law.

At the same time, the Act protects against forced disclosure of HIV status and requires any person in a position of knowledge about a donor’s HIV status to maintain confidentiality, unless the donor has provided informed consent to disclosure or a court order requires it. When a blood bank detects a reactive result and notifies a donor, that notification must be handled confidentially – the donor’s HIV status cannot be shared with the recipient, third parties, or the public without the donor’s consent.

The Mr. X v. Hospital Z tension 🔗

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mr. X v. Hospital Z introduced a significant complication to the confidentiality framework. In that case, a blood bank rejected a donor’s blood after it tested HIV-positive, then disclosed the donor’s identity to a third party (his prospective bride’s family). The court held that the right to privacy under Article 21 is not absolute, and that disclosure of the donor’s HIV status to protect a third party from infection could be justified. However, the decision was widely criticised for equating HIV with moral failing and for failing to account for non-sexual routes of transmission. The 2017 Act subsequently strengthened confidentiality protections precisely to prevent such disclosures being made without proper procedural safeguards.

The current legal position is that a blood bank has every right – and indeed a duty – to reject HIV-positive blood from the supply. However, it must not reveal the donor’s identity to the recipient or to the public. The notification must go to the donor alone, through appropriate counselling channels.

Voluntary donation and the safety connection 🔗

The law’s emphasis on voluntary, non-remunerated blood donation is not merely symbolic – it has a direct impact on HIV safety. HIV positivity rates among voluntary donors are consistently lower than among replacement or family donors – ranging between 0.17-0.22 percent for voluntary donors versus 0.23-0.25 percent for replacement donors over several years of NACO data. Voluntary donors self-screen more effectively, are more likely to be repeat donors with known safety profiles, and are less likely to be driven by financial pressure to donate when they know they may be at risk.

This is why the National Blood Policy’s goal of achieving 100 percent voluntary donation is also a legally-backed HIV prevention strategy, not just a public health aspiration. Banning paid donation, as the Supreme Court directed in 1996, was as much about HIV safety as it was about exploitation of economically vulnerable donors.

Ongoing gaps and the legal imperative to close them 🔗

Despite the framework in place, implementation remains uneven. Even among blood banks that conduct screening, donor notification and follow-up remain poor – in one AIIMS-based study, only 23.3 percent of reactive donors actually responded to notification, and just 26.6 percent of those who did respond received treatment within six months. A reactive test result without follow-up and treatment notification leaves both the donor’s health and the public health objective unachieved.

More recently, events such as the Jharkhand incident in 2025, where children with thalassaemia reportedly contracted HIV after transfusions from an unlicensed blood bank, have highlighted that the legal framework, no matter how well-designed, can only protect patients if blood banks actually comply with licensing, testing, and safety protocols. Regulatory oversight and enforcement remain as important as the rules themselves.

From a legal standpoint, the path forward involves three interconnected steps: making NAT mandatory alongside ELISA for all licensed blood banks; strengthening the licensing and inspection regime under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to ensure compliance; and robustly enforcing the confidentiality and notification provisions of the HIV and AIDS Act, 2017 to protect donors who test reactive from stigma and discrimination. Safe blood and protected donors are not competing goals – the legal framework is designed to achieve both simultaneously.

What do you think? Given that the window period means no test can guarantee zero risk, should India make Nucleic Acid Testing mandatory for all licensed blood banks regardless of cost – and if so, who should bear the financial burden of that upgrade? And when a blood bank detects a reactive HIV result in a donor’s blood, how should the law balance the donor’s right to confidentiality with the recipient’s right to know the source of a potential infection?

References

1. https://scroll.in/pulse/809176/hiv-transmission-why-is-blood-transfusion-in-india-not-yet-safe
2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8628249/
3. https://www.naco.gov.in/national-blood-transfusion-council-nbtc
4. https://dghs.mohfw.gov.in/bts.php
5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3026121/
6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4248483/
7. https://www.njlm.net/articles/PDF/2205/26201_CE%5BVSU%5D_F(GH)_PF1(VsuGH)_PFA_NC(GH)_PF2(VsuGH).pdf
8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3943137/
9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3943139/
10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1473050225001995
11. https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/jalandhar/world-aids-day-nat-testing-for-blood-disorder-patients-to-be-mandatory-soon/
12. https://naco.gov.in/hiv-aids-p-c-act-2017
13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Immunodeficiency_Virus_and_Acquired_Immune_Deficiency_Syndrome_(Prevention_and_Control)_Act,_2017
14. https://ijme.in/articles/the-hiv-act-better-late-than-never/?galley=print
15. https://ijme.in/articles/hiv-and-aids-some-legal-and-ethical-implications-for-the-medical-profession/?galley=print
16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4525398/
17. https://www.ocacademy.in/blogs/jharkhand-blood-transfusion-scandal-five-children-contract-hiv/