Ordering DNA Test When Paternity Question Has No Nexus With Offence Is Unwarranted: Supreme Court

In a significant ruling reiterating the sanctity of the presumption of legitimacy attached to children born within wedlock, the Supreme Court has held that a DNA test cannot be directed as a matter of course to determine paternity, especially when it risks illegitimising a child and intrudes upon individual privacy.The Court underscored that scientific tools like DNA profiling cannot be used for “fishing inquiries” and must be resorted to only in cases of eminent need, where the investigation cannot proceed without it.Observing that the presumption of a child's legitimacy during a wedlock under Section 112 of Evidence operates as a 'conclusive proof', the Supreme Court on set aside the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) order that compelled a doctor to undergo a DNA test in a paternity dispute. “Section 112 embodies a legislative policy of profound significance, it stands as a bulwark against the casual illegitimization of children on the strength of unsubstantiated allegations or mere suspicion. The presumption it creates is not a procedural formality to be lightly displaced but a substantive safeguard intended to protect the dignity, social legitimacy, and the legal rights of children born within wedlock.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M Pancholi.Background of the CaseThe case arose from a criminal complaint filed by the respondent, who alleged that she had been in an extramarital relationship with the appellant, , while still married to another man. She claimed that her child, born in 2007, was fathered by the doctor.Following her public allegations on a television programme, an FIR was registered against the appellant for cheating and harassment under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC and the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act. During investigation, police sought DNA testing of the appellant, the respondent, and the child.When the doctor refused, the High Court ordered that he submit to DNA profiling. That direction was later affirmed by a Division Bench, leading to the present appeal.Supreme Court's viewThe Supreme Court began its analysis by examining Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides a “conclusive presumption of legitimacy” for a child born during the continuance of a valid marriage.Setting aside the impugned findings, a judgment authored by Justice Mishra observed:"The presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act operates as 'Conclusive Proof' of the legitimacy of a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage... This presumption endures unless it is affirmatively established, by strong and unambiguous evidence, that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when the child could have been begotten... Since the law favours legitimacy and frowns upon the illegitimacy, the burden is cast upon the person who asserts 'illegitimacy' to displace the presumption."Taking a cue from the recent precedent of Ivan Rathinam vs. Milan Joseph, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 118, where the Court laid down the two-fold test that must be satisfied before a DNA test can be ordered i.e., (i) insufficiency of evidence; and (ii) a positive finding regarding the balance of interests, the judgment authored by Justice Mishra observed: The Court held that to rebut this presumption, the claimant must prove “non-access” between the husband and wife at the time the child could have been conceived. Mere allegations of an affair or simultaneous access by another person, the judges said, do not displace this presumption.The Bench noted that in the present case, the complainant's husband's name appeared as father in the child's birth and school records, and there was no concrete proof that he had no access to his wife at the relevant time.On the aspect of balance of interests, the court said “In the present case, this balance weighs decisively against ordering DNA testing. Such a direction would constitute a significant intrusion into the privacy and dignity of both, the appellant and the child, implicating the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” The Court found that in this case, neither blockade was crossed, as the presumption of legitimacy stood unrebutted and the balance of interests weighed against the test. On Right To Privacy And DNA Testing The Court strongly affirmed that compelling an individual to undergo a DNA test is a serious intrusion on fundamental rights, observing: "Forcefully subjecting an individual to DNA testing constitutes a grave intrusion upon privacy and personal liberty. Such an encroachment can be justified only if it satisfies the threefold test of legality, legitimate State aim, and proportionality." The Court further held that one party's willingness to waive their own privacy "does not extend to waiving the privacy of others."Even if the mother voluntarily waives her privacy, that waiver does not extend to the privacy rights of the child or the alleged father, the ...

Ordering DNA Test When Paternity Question Has No Nexus With Offence Is Unwarranted: Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

The Court underscored that ordering DNA test as a matter of routine can violate the right to privacy of an individual as well as the child.

Tags