Child's Right To Know Father Must Be Balanced With Other Person's Right To Privacy; Can't Force DNA Test On Mere Adultery Allegations : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that a careful balance must be struck between the child's right to know their biological parents and an individual's right to dignity and privacy. The Court emphasized that once the legitimacy of the child is established under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, it would be unjust to compel a third party to undergo a paternity (DNA) test, as it would violate the individual's right to dignity and privacy.As per Section 112, a child born during the subsistence of a marriage is conclusively presumed to be the legitimate child of the couple, unless it is proved that the couple had no access to each other during the period.“Forcefully undergoing a DNA test would subject an individual's private life to scrutiny from the outside world. That scrutiny, particularly when concerning matters of infidelity, can be harsh and can eviscerate a person's reputation and standing in society. It can irreversibly affect a person's social and professional life, along with his mental health. On account of this, he has the right to undertake certain actions to protect his dignity and privacy, including refusing to undergo a DNA test.”, the Court said. The bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the case where the Respondent sought a DNA test of the Appellant claiming that the latter was his biological father. He filed a plea before the family court seeking a DNA test of the Appellant to ascertain whether the Appellant was his biological father. Following the High Court's approval of the family court's decision subjecting him to the DNA test, the Appellant moved to the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that he should not be compelled to undergo DNA testing, as it would infringe upon his dignity and privacy. He stated that once the legitimacy of the respondent was properly established under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, there was no need to subject him to a paternity test, as the paternity of the respondent's mother and one RK had already been confirmed through the establishment of the respondent's legitimacy. Finding merit in the appellant's argument, Justice Kant's judgment stated that legitimacy and paternity are closely linked. Once the respondent's legitimacy was established, the presumption of legitimacy could not be questioned by a DNA test. Instead, parties must present evidence to prove non-access in order to challenge the presumption. “It must be noted that the law permits only a preliminary enquiry into a person's private life by allowing the parties to bring evidence on record to prove non-access to dislodge the presumption of legitimacy. When the law provides for a mode to attain a particular object, that mode must be satisfied. When the evidence submitted does not rebut this presumption, the court cannot subvert the law to attain a particular object, by permitting a roving enquiry into a person's private life, such as through a DNA test.”, the court observed. The Court expressed concerns about forcefully subjecting an individual to a DNA test. “Casting aspersions on a married woman's fidelity would ruin her reputation, status, and dignity; such that she would be castigated in society… The conferment of such a right can lead to its potential misuse against vulnerable women. They would be put to trial in a court of law and the court of public opinion, causing them significant mental distress, among other issues. It is in this sphere that their right to dignity and privacy deserve special consideration.” Applying the law to the facts of the case, the Court held: “Despite concurrent findings of three courts as to the legitimacy of the Respondent, he and his mother maintain and proclaim to the world that the Appellant is his biological father. It must be underscored that the Appellant has maintained a consistent stance across all fora that he never had sexual relations with the Respondent's mother. In fact, the dispute was assumed to have been put to rest in 2011, providing some relief to the Appellant, only to be reopened in 2015, once again making him face the brunt of the allegations. This constant pendulum-like state of affairs and unsubstantiated allegations must have, undoubtedly, had an adverse effect on the Appellant's quality of life. In this backdrop, an order necessitating a DNA test based on mere allegations of adultery, would ultimately violate the Appellant's right to dignity and privacy.”The Court concluded that the the High Court erred in holding that the Respondent's legitimate interest to know his father outweighs the infringement of the Appellant's right to privacy and dignity.Also From Judgment: Presumption That Husband Is Father Of Child Born During Marriage Not Displaced Even If Wife Had Relations With Another Man : Supreme CourtFamily Court Cannot Entertain Paternity Claim From Extra-Marital Affair : Supreme CourtCase Title: Ivan Rathinam versus Milan JosephCitation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 118Click here to read/download the judgmentRelated -...

Child's Right To Know Father Must Be Balanced With Other Person's Right To Privacy; Can't Force DNA Test On Mere Adultery Allegations : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Child's Right To Know Father Must Be Balanced With Other Person's Right To Privacy; Can't Force DNA Test On Mere Adultery Allegations : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers