INDIA HOSTED the first Global Summit to End Diabetes Stigma in Jaipur in March 2026. One of the main themes was the application of human rights law to address diabetes-related stigma in healthcare, education, and employment. The key question that emerged was this: what lessons can be drawn from the HIV rights-based response in combating discrimination and misinformation?
People living with Type 1 diabetes (‘T1D’) continue to face stigma and discrimination rooted in myths, stereotypes, and a persistent misunderstanding of this autoimmune condition, often diagnosed in childhood, adolescence or as young adults. Parents are frequently confronted with misleading claims—particularly so-called “cures”—that exploit their vulnerability and create confusion about effective treatment.
Children with T1 diabetes and learnings from HIV response
For children, these dynamics translate into direct violations of legal rights. There are documented instances of schools refusing admission upon disclosure of T1D in admission forms—constituting an abuse of disclosed medical information to exclude children with T1D and an infringement of the child’s right to education. Even where admission is granted, schools often impose disproportionate and discriminatory conditions, such as requiring a parent—typically the mother—to remain in school due to perceived risks associated with insulin administration or medical emergencies.
These practices point to a clear regulatory and policy gap. The Central Advisory Board of Education (‘CABE’), India’s highest advisory body that advises central and state governments on education policy, lacks guidance to govern admission practices and the schools’ duty of care toward children with chronic conditions such as T1D. At the same time, there is inadequate coordination with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (‘MoHFW’) and its National Programme for Prevention and Control of Non-Communicable Diseases (‘NCD Programme’) to ensure early screening in schools and access of children with T1D to essential diabetes management tools. These include insulin pens and continuous glucose monitoring devices (‘CGMs’) which facilitate their management and reduce the opportunities for exclusion from attendance and activities in both public and private school settings. The result is a de facto exclusion from education for many children with T1D.
The HIV response offers a useful point of comparison. HIV organisations contributed to the development of legal standards prohibiting discrimination on the basis of health status and frameworks adopted by the National AIDS Control Organisation, and CABE. For children living with HIV this jurisprudence was further strengthened in Naz Foundation v. Union of India (2017), where the Supreme Court of India affirmed that children living with or affected by HIV must be protected from discrimination in education. The Court clarified that such discrimination includes denial or limitation of access at the admissions stage, as well as segregation within schools in classrooms, sports, playgrounds, canteens, or other facilities. It also recognised the need to protect children and their families from financial extortion or forced expenditure linked to their HIV status. Significantly, the Court, in Naz Foundation, held that children living with or affected by HIV fall within the category of a “child belonging to a disadvantaged group” under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, thereby providing coverage under existing obligations on private schools who have to reserve a minimum of 25 percent of seats for economically weaker section (‘EWS’) and disadvantaged groups.
Learnings from early years of HIV/AIDS response on stigma and discrimination
Discrimination extends beyond schools. People with T1D may face exclusion or restrictive terms in insurance coverage, and in workplaces they may lack privacy and appropriate spaces to monitor blood glucose or administer insulin, due to fear that revealing their condition may lead to loss of employment or non-renewal of contracts.
These challenges and experiences echo the early years of the HIV/AIDS response, when stigma was driven by fear, misinformation, and moral judgment. People living with HIV were denied employment, education, healthcare and treatment; confidentiality protections were routinely violated; and discriminatory practices were often justified on public health grounds. Over time, sustained advocacy—led by networks of people living with HIV and vulnerable groups—combined with strategic litigation and judicial engagement by a human rights organisation - the Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit - reframed HIV as a matter of rights rather than morality. This shift facilitated expanded access to testing, prevention, and treatment, ultimately strengthening public health outcomes, including reduced infection rates and successful viral suppression among people living with HIV.
At a systemic level, inequities in access persist. As the NCD Programme does not guarantee free and decentralised access to easy-to-administer insulin pens, glucose monitoring, and essential care for people with T1D, out-of-pocket expenditure becomes the default in many states of India. This effectively excludes economically vulnerable T1D individuals and increases the risk of preventable complications, disability, and premature mortality—raising serious concerns regarding their right to health.
A public interest litigation—Sankalp Rehabilitation Trust v. Union of India—helped improve oversight of HIV treatment rollout. The petition relied on Article 21 of the Constitution, interpreted by the Supreme Court as encompassing the right to health. It invoked India’s commitments under international treaties and respondents included the National AIDS Control Organisation (‘NACO’). By virtue of it, between 2008 and 2012, the Court passed various directions to NACO and state governments to promote access to healthcare services and equal access to life saving anti-retroviral therapy and diagnostics for all people living with HIV without discrimination.
Similar initiatives are needed to monitor and address barriers to the availability and accessibility of insulin pens, glucose monitoring devices, and related commodities. This includes strengthening initiatives of state governments, controlling irrational treatment in the private sector, and ensuring the active involvement of the NCD Programme in developing national guidelines to ensure there are no double standards in care, monitoring and treatment among states and providing support on tendering and procurement.
Learnings on regulating misleading advertisements
The regulation of misleading advertisements warrants particular attention. Claims of “cures” for T1D—often promoted through unproven or pseudo-scientific interventions—should be subject to rigorous enforcement under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (‘DMROA Act’) and related regulatory frameworks by the MoHFW. Such claims exploit vulnerable parents of T1 diabetes children and may delay access to life-saving insulin therapy, thereby increasing the risk of severe complications and death.
Importantly, the HIV response also saw the strategic use of this Act to challenge false or misleading claims of “cures for HIV/AIDS.” In India, networks of people living with HIV invoked the DMROA Act in courts to scrutinise and curb such claims, recognising them as exploitative and as barriers to evidence-based treatment.
In January 2007, the Supreme Court ordered Kerala-based T.A. Majeed to stop the manufacturing, marketing, selling, and distribution of "Immuno-QR," a drug he falsely claimed cured HIV/AIDS, without clinical trials evidence. The litigation was pursued by networks of people living with HIV, who highlighted that such “magic cure” claims exploited vulnerable patients and undermined access to evidence-based treatment. The case also contributed to stronger regulatory attention from NACO and led to the inclusion of HIV/AIDS in the Schedule of diseases for which advertisements claiming cure or prevention are prohibited under Section 3 of the DMROA Act. These precedents are crucial for the T1D community who are battling false advertisements of T1 diabetes cures, undermining their treatment literacy efforts.
Towards equitable access to treatment for T1D patients
This experience provides a clear legal and policy pathway for addressing T1D. Constitutional guarantees of equality, non-discrimination, and the constitutional right to health as interpreted under Article 21 can and should be invoked to challenge exclusionary practices in education, insurance coverage, and employment, as well as lack of access to free treatment leading to disability and hospitalisation. Equally, the failure of the MoHFW and the NCD Programme to ensure equitable access to essential treatment for people living with T1 diabetes raises concerns regarding the State’s international obligations to progressively realise the right to health without discrimination, particularly in light of progress relating to local production and the affordability of insulin pens and devices.
Equally critical is the role of collective action. As demonstrated in the HIV context, community-led advocacy is central to challenging stigma, shaping legal norms, and ensuring accountability. Building representative platforms of people living with diabetes - such as the Diabetes Fighters Trust, and Blue Circle Diabetes Foundation - can support efforts to address discrimination and secure access to life-saving treatment free of cost.
A rights-based approach therefore requires proactive policy action, regulatory engagement, and strategic litigation. If structural barriers—like stigma, discriminatory practices, unaffordable care, and the proliferation of false “cures”—are not addressed, existing stigma and inequities for people living with T1D are bound to exacerbate.
Advancing a rights-based framework—grounded in India’s commitments under resolutions of the World Health Assembly as a member of the World Health Organization—translates, in practical terms, into strengthening the national NCD programme to ensure early screening, uninterrupted insulin supply, and access to patient friendly delivery and monitoring devices. These measures are among the most effective ways to reduce avoidable morbidity, disability, and premature death among children and adults living with Type 1 diabetes in India.