In News:

The Supreme Court recently upheld an order directing a man to undergo a DNA test in a paternity dispute, holding that a child's right to establish biological identity and claim inheritance can, in appropriate cases, outweigh an individual's right to privacy. The case involved a person claiming to be the biological son of the respondent and seeking a declaration of paternity along with a share in ancestral property. The alleged father had denied the claim for over two decades.

Legal Background

The issue is governed by Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (earlier Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), which creates a strong presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage or within 280 days of its dissolution.

This presumption can be rebutted only by proving that the husband and wife had no access to each other during the period of conception. The provision seeks to protect the legitimacy, dignity, and social status of children.

DNA Testing and Judicial Evolution

India has no specific legislation expressly authorising courts to order DNA tests in paternity disputes. Consequently, the legal framework has evolved through judicial precedents.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has consistently maintained that DNA testing should not be ordered routinely because it may affect privacy, family relationships, and the legitimacy of a child. Courts have treated DNA testing as a measure of last resort, to be invoked only when necessary for the administration of justice.

Conditions for Ordering DNA Tests

The Supreme Court has evolved a three-fold test for directing DNA examination:

• Paternity must be the central issue in the dispute.
• No other reliable evidence should be available to establish the claim.
• The test must be necessary in the interest of justice after balancing competing rights.

Only when these conditions are satisfied can a court compel a party to undergo DNA testing.

Supreme Court's Reasoning in the Present Case

The Court found that all three conditions were fulfilled. Paternity was the core issue, the claimant had no alternative means of proving his biological relationship, and the outcome directly affected inheritance rights.

While recognising that DNA testing intrudes upon privacy, the Court observed that denying the test would permanently deprive the claimant of an opportunity to establish his identity and pursue rights that may legally accrue to him. Therefore, the Court held that the child's right to know his parentage and seek inheritance outweighed the privacy claim in the specific facts of the case.

Constitutional and Ethical Issues

The judgment highlights the delicate balance between competing constitutional rights.

• Right to Privacy: The Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of Indiarecognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. However, the present ruling reiterates that privacy is not absolute and may be restricted when a compelling competing right exists.
• Right to Identity and Inheritance: The decision strengthens the principle that an individual has a legitimate interest in knowing their biological parentage, particularly when questions of legal status, inheritance, and family rights are involved.
• Judicial Law-Making: The case also highlights the judiciary's role in filling legislative gaps, as the framework governing DNA testing in paternity disputes has largely evolved through judicial interpretation rather than statutory provisions.

Significance

The ruling reinforces the principle that courts must carefully balance privacy rights with the right to identity, dignity, and inheritance. It also clarifies that DNA testing remains an exceptional remedy and cannot be ordered routinely, but may be permitted when it is the only effective means of discovering the truth and ensuring justice.