Can Privacy Trump Parentage? Supreme Court on DNA Test in Paternity Cases

Context:

Recently, while upholding an order for a DNA test in a case, the Supreme Court observed that, under certain circumstances, a child's desire to know their biological identity may outweigh the alleged father's right to privacy under Article 21.

Background: The Question of Paternity in Indian Law

For a long time in India, paternity disputes have been resolved primarily on the basis of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 2023). According to this provision, a child born during marriage is considered legitimate unless proof of non-access i.e. non-cohabitation between the husband and wife is given.

Its primary purpose was to:

• protect the child from social stigma,

• maintain family stability,

• protect the child from being declared an "illegitimate child."

About Court ruling:

• • • The Court held that the issue of paternity was directly and substantially in question in the present proceedings. It further noted that there was no other material or evidence on record capable of conclusively determining the question of parentage. In these circumstances, the Court found that scientific examination through DNA testing was necessary for an effective and just resolution of the dispute.
    • The Court further observed that refusal to permit such testing could result in a situation where the claimant is permanently deprived of the opportunity to establish legally enforceable rights, including rights relating to identity and inheritance.
    • Accordingly, the Court held that in appropriate cases, the interest of a child or claimant in ascertaining biological origins may outweigh the privacy concerns of the alleged parent, particularly where no alternative evidence is available to resolve the dispute.

Legal Framework:

• • • Indian law strongly presumes legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, now Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023.
    • It states that a child born during a valid marriage, or within 280 days of its dissolution, is presumed legitimate unless “non-access” between spouses is proven during the relevant period.
    • This presumption reflects a legal intent to protect family stability and the dignity of the child.

Evolution of DNA Testing in Indian Law:

• • • When Section 112 was enacted in 1872, scientific paternity testing did not exist. DNA testing became commercially available globally only after the 1980s and gradually entered Indian legal proceedings in the 1990s.
    • Early judicial recognition came in Kunhiraman v. Manoj (1991, Kerala High Court), which accepted DNA evidence in a non-marital dispute, signalling a shift toward scientific proof in family law.

Key Supreme Court Precedents:

• • • In Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993), the Court rejected routine blood/DNA testing, holding that a strong prima facie case of non-access must first be shown.
    • In Banarsi Dass v. Teeku Dutta (2005), the Court firmly held that DNA tests are not to be ordered as a matter of routine and cannot easily override Section 112’s presumption.
    • However, in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata (2014), the Court accepted DNA evidence, holding that scientific truth may prevail over legal presumption when both conflict.
    • This created a two-stage principle: presumption governs unless DNA evidence is ordered; once ordered, scientific results are treated as decisive.

Conclusion:

The ruling marks a shift from protecting legitimacy alone to a balanced rights-based approach. While privacy remains a key constitutional value after Puttaswamy, it is not absolute. In paternity disputes, courts now accept that where no other evidence exists, the right to know biological identity may, in exceptional cases, override privacy concerns.