Superstar Mohanlal’s recent intervention on Bigg Boss Malayalam 7 has drawn widespread praise for defending lesbian couple and reignited discussion on why the LGBTQIA+ community remains barred from donating blood in India.

During a recent episode, Mohanlal confronted contestant Lakshmi for questioning the participation of housemates Adhila Nasarin and Fathima Noora. Lakshmi claimed the couple “would not be welcomed into other people’s homes” and that she would never invite them to hers. Another contestant, Mastani, accused the couple of “normalising LGBTQ culture”.

Mohanlal responded firmly: “I will welcome them to my home. You need to be careful with such comments when you’re here. What right do you have to say who is allowed in houses? If you can't stand them, leave the house, get off the show.” He further emphasised: “They don’t live at your expense,” warning that repeated disrespect could lead to removal from the house.

Former contestants, viewers and netizens alike have lauded Mohanlal’s stand. However, many critics of the LGBTQIA+ community raised a pointed question: if society should accept and respect LGBTQ individuals, why is their blood still banned from donation? Mohanlal’s remarks brought the issue back into the public eye, prompting debate on India’s blood donation policies.

Why ban?

In August 2025, the Union government submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court, maintaining that no revision to existing guidelines was needed. The government argued that groups including transgender persons, men having sex with men (MSM), and women sex workers present a statistically higher risk of HIV and other transfusion-transmitted infections (TTIs). Allowing donations from these groups could “proportionately increase systemic risks” and undermine the integrity of the national blood supply.

The affidavit cited globally accepted research, public health principles, and epidemiological evidence, describing the deferral of high-risk categories as “reasonable and essential”. It also highlighted limitations in testing technology, noting that infections can remain undetectable during the “window period”, making exclusion a “prudent, precautionary, and evidence-based measure”. The Centre emphasised that the guidelines are data-driven, not stigma-based, and referenced international practices. Several Asian countries, including China, Singapore, and Thailand, maintain similar bans. Article 47 of the Constitution, obliging the State to protect public health, was also cited.

The August affidavit followed Supreme Court directions in May. During a hearing on May 14, the bench questioned the rationale for branding entire communities as “risky”. Justice Surya Kant asked: “Are we going to brand all transgenders as risky and stigmatise them?” The Court sought expert opinion to remove bias in medical guidelines, warning that blanket bans could deepen stigma.

An expert committee under the Directorate General of Health Services met on May 29 and concluded that the 2017 Guidelines for Blood Donor Selection remain appropriate, citing safety, epidemiology, and international standards. 

Legal proceedings continue

The debate over LGBTQIA+ blood donation remains unresolved, with the matter still under judicial consideration. The Supreme Court has yet to issue a final ruling, and the Centre’s affidavit upholding the 2017 guidelines continues to be examined by the bench.