The Supreme Court, in a recent ruling, upheld the use of a DNA test for determining paternity and addressed a long-standing legal question: does an individual's right to privacy override the need to ascertain biological parentage? Prior to this decision, the Court had consistently maintained that DNA tests should be ordered sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. However, there was no definitive answer regarding the precise situations in which such tests could be permitted.
A paternity test is used to determine the biological lineage of a child and establish parentage. However, following the landmark judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, courts have become increasingly cautious about directing DNA tests. Such tests involve the collection of biological samples and therefore engage concerns relating to privacy, bodily autonomy, and personal dignity.
In CP v. AP (2026 INSC 600), the Supreme Court, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, upheld the orders of the Trial Court and the Chhattisgarh High Court directing a DNA test to determine the paternity of the respondent. The appellant challenged the direction on the grounds of privacy, lack of necessity, and the principle of res judicata arising from earlier maintenance proceedings.
The Court relied on earlier precedents, including Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal, which held that blood or DNA tests cannot be ordered as a matter of course and that no person can be compelled to provide a sample; Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy, which recognized that DNA testing may be directed where it is necessary to ascertain the truth and no effective alternative exists; Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, which emphasized that DNA tests should be ordered only in exceptional cases where paternity is directly in issue and cannot be determined through other evidence; and Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, which required courts to balance privacy concerns against a person's legitimate interest in establishing biological parentage.
Applying these principles, the Court observed that the respondent's suit sought a declaration of paternity and inheritance rights, making paternity the central issue in the dispute. Since the appellant had consistently denied paternity and no other evidence could conclusively determine the truth, a DNA test became indispensable for resolving the controversy.
The Court further balanced the appellant's right to privacy against the respondent's legitimate interest in obtaining certainty regarding his parentage and the legal rights that may flow from it. Holding that the balance of interests lay in favour of the respondent, the Court dismissed the appeal and directed the civil court to proceed with the DNA test and continue the suit in accordance with the result.
The significance of this judgment lies in its clarification of the legal standard governing DNA testing in paternity disputes. While reaffirming that DNA tests cannot be ordered routinely, the Court recognized that where paternity forms the core issue of the litigation and no alternative evidence can conclusively establish the truth, scientific testing becomes necessary. By balancing the appellant's right to privacy against the respondent's right to ascertain his biological identity and claim the legal rights arising from such status, the Court adopted a rights-based approach that prioritizes truth and justice.
The decision therefore reinforces that DNA testing may be permitted in exceptional cases where it is indispensable for resolving a genuine dispute and protecting the rights of a child. In doing so, the Court has provided much-needed clarity on the relationship between privacy rights and the judicial search for truth in paternity litigation.
Views are personal.