In a groundbreaking judgment delivered on September 26, the Supreme Court has issued a series of significant directions to the Central and State Governments, emphasizing the robust implementation of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017, commonly known as the HIV Act.
The apex court, with Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta presiding, directed all courts, tribunals, and quasi-judicial bodies throughout the country to prioritize cases involving HIV-positive individuals. The court stated,
“Merely because the petitioner was working as ADGP, Recruitment Wing, it cannot be concluded at this stage that alleged offence is committed at his instruction or in other words, he has conspired to commit the offence.”
The court further emphasized the importance of preserving the anonymity of HIV-infected individuals, asserting that steps should be taken to keep their identities confidential.
In a significant part of the judgment, the Supreme Court held both the Indian Army and the Indian Air Force
“jointly and severally liable”
for medical negligence, awarding a compensation of Rs 1.5 crore to a former Indian Air Force official. The ex-officer had contracted HIV following a blood transfusion at a military hospital.
The court’s directives for the effective implementation of the HIV Act are as follows:
- Ensuring Access to Diagnostic and Treatment Facilities: The court directed,
“The Central and State Governments are instructed, under Section 14(1) of the HIV Act, to ensure access to diagnostic facilities related to HIV or AIDS, Antiretroviral therapy, and Opportunistic Infection Management for individuals living with HIV or AIDS.”
- Formulating Guidelines within Three Months: The court ordered the Central Government to
“issue guidelines for protocols concerning diagnostic facilities, Antiretroviral therapy, and Opportunistic Infection Management within three months.”
- Facilitating Access to Welfare Schemes: The court emphasized that both the Central and State Governments should
“facilitate better access to welfare schemes for individuals infected or affected by HIV or AIDS.”
- Protecting Children’s Property: The court highlighted the need to
“protect the property of children/their parents or guardians affected by HIV/AIDS.”
- Developing IEC Programs: The court mandated the creation of
“age-appropriate, gender-sensitive, non-stigmatizing, and non-discriminatory information, education, and communication programs related to HIV and AIDS.”
- Guidelines for Children Infected with HIV or AIDS: The court directed the Central Government to
“formulate guidelines for the care, support, and treatment of children infected with HIV or AIDS.”
- Ensuring a Safe Working Environment: The court stressed that
“all establishments related to healthcare services and those at significant risk of occupational exposure to HIV must provide universal precautions, training, and post-exposure prophylaxis.”
- Formulating Rules for Compliance Oversight: The court stated that those in charge of establishments should
“ensure compliance with its provisions. A Complaints Officer should be designated to address violations.”
The court ordered,
“The Union Labour and Employment Secretary shall file an affidavit of compliance containing a tabular statement, with respect to the implementation of provisions of the Act, within 16 weeks from today.”
Furthermore, the Supreme Court directed the Chief Justices of all High Courts to
“compile information and devise methods for collecting data concerning compliance with the HIV Act.”
The Registrar General of the Supreme Court was also directed to “oversee the matter and frame relevant guidelines.”
The case, marked as C.A. No. 7175/2021, is set to have profound implications, emphasizing the rights and welfare of those affected by HIV or AIDS.
