The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to mandate Nucleic Acid Testing (NAT) as the primary screening method for blood transfusions across the country. The petitioner argued that NAT testing significantly reduces the “window period” for detecting infections such as HIV, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C compared to conventional ELISA testing.

According to the petitioner, NAT testing can detect infections within 7-10 days, whereas ELISA tests may take 55-60 days, increasing the risk of transfusion-transmitted infections for patients who require frequent blood transfusions, including children suffering from thalassemia.

However, the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed reluctance to intervene in what it described as a technical medical policy issue involving financial and administrative considerations of states. The Court remarked:

“This is not a subject we can understand. Why should we pretend as if we know medical science?”

Observing that such policy decisions involve complex scientific and financial evaluations, the Court stated that it could not issue directions in the absence of detailed data on infrastructure, cost implications and state-level capabilities. The Bench further noted that the relief sought would have significant financial implications, since each state has its own budgetary constraints and health policy priorities.

In a lighter remark during the hearing, the CJI observed:

“Our parents did not send us to medical college… we were sent to some law school from where, rightly or wrongly, we obtained degrees and now we are allowed to deal only with legal issues.”

Accordingly, the Court declined to issue directions mandating NAT testing nationwide.