HC seeks explanation from govt over blood donation lapses
The Telangana High Court has sought detailed explanations from the authorities and other respondents over alleged procedural and regulatory violations at a mega blood donation camp held at King’s Palace, Gudimalkapur, on February 23, 2025.
Justice NV Shravan Kumar was hearing a writ petition filed by advocate Barkat Ali Khan, appearing as party-in-person, concerning the camp organised by the Thalassemia Sickle Cell Society (TSCS) and journalist Mohammed Akram alias Abu Aimal. The petitioner alleged violations of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules and guidelines governing voluntary blood donation camps.
Khan informed the court that 41 units collected during the camp were subsequently discarded, including units allegedly found to be HIV-positive and affected by other blood-borne infections. He alleged lapses in donor screening, health assessment, counselling, consent, testing and record-keeping, besides failure to upload camp details on the e-RaktKosh portal.
The petitioner submitted that proper pre-donation screening could have prevented the collection and subsequent wastage of unsafe blood and reduced risks to vulnerable patients.
The petitioner said complaints and RTI applications had earlier been submitted to the Gudimalkapur police, Thalassemia Centre and hospitals concerned. Following the complaints, the Drugs Control Administration conducted an inquiry and allegedly found violations at the Thalassemia Centre. A show-cause notice dated June 3, 2025 was subsequently issued seeking an explanation as to why the blood bank’s licence should not be suspended or cancelled.
Finance dept can’t reject proposals to implement court orders: HC
The Telangana High Court has made it clear that the Principal Secretary of the Finance Department cannot reject proposals intended to implement orders of the Supreme Court or the High Court. He can, at most, examine the proposals under the applicable rules and place his views before the competent higher authority, the court said.
Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao was hearing contempt petitions filed by 31 temporary employees of Osmania University seeking implementation of court directions for regularisation of their services.
The court expressed strong displeasure over the Finance Department repeatedly returning the proposals sent for regularisation. “Can the Principal Secretary, Finance, reject the orders of the court?” the judge asked the government pleader. When the GP agreed, the judge then questioned why the Finance Secretary was holding up the file and sending it back instead of facilitating implementation of the court’s orders.
The employees had approached the High Court in 1999 seeking regularisation of their services. A favourable judgment was passed in 2000, following which the university filed an appeal. The employees again secured relief in 2025.
During the hearing, it came to light that the proposal concerning their regularisation had been sent to the Finance Department three times but was returned on each occasion. The court observed that authorities had repeatedly stated that the matter was under consideration and questioned how long the affected employees could be made to wait.
The court said the Finance Department’s role was primarily confined to financial scrutiny and audit-related aspects.
