In News:

Recently, the Supreme Court upheld a trial court's order directing a DNA test in a paternity dispute, revisiting the delicate balance between a child's right to know their biological parentage and an individual's fundamental Right to Privacy. The case highlights the evolving judicial approach towards scientific evidence, personal autonomy, and family law.

Constitutional and Legal Context

Following the landmark Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Right to Privacy was recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, compulsory DNA testing is now viewed not merely as an evidentiary tool but also as an intrusion into bodily autonomy and informational privacy.

At the same time, courts have recognized that a child may have a legitimate interest in establishing biological identity, inheritance rights, emotional closure, and legal status.

Presumption of Legitimacy

Traditionally, Indian law protects children born during a valid marriage through a strong legal presumption of legitimacy.

• Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) presumes that a child born during a valid marriage is legitimate.
• This presumption can be rebutted only if the husband proves "non-access" during the period of conception.

The provision aims to protect children from social stigma and preserve family stability.

Evolution of Supreme Court Jurisprudence

• Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993): The Supreme Court held that DNA and blood tests cannot be ordered routinely. A party disputing paternity must first establish a strong prima facie case of non-access before such tests are considered.
• Banarsi Dass v. Teeku Dutta (2005): The Court reiterated that DNA testing should remain an exceptional remedy and not become a routine judicial practice.
• Nandlal WasudeoBadwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2014): The Court adopted a more scientific approach, holding that where a conflict arises between legal presumptions and conclusive scientific evidence, scientific truth should prevail.
• Rohit Shekhar v. Narayan Dutt Tiwari (2014): The Supreme Court prioritized the child's right to establish biological parentage and directed DNA testing despite objections based on privacy, recognizing the importance of identity and legitimacy.
• Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025): The Court clarified that neither an unrestricted right to demand DNA testing nor an absolute privacy shield can be accepted. Instead, courts must determine whether there is an "eminent need" for the test and balance competing rights on a case-by-case basis.

Present Judicial Position

The current approach seeks to balance:

• Child's right to identity and parentage.
• Right to dignity and psychological closure.
• Right to inheritance and legal recognition.

Versus

• Right to privacy under Article 21.
• Bodily autonomy.
• Protection from unnecessary intrusion.

Thus, DNA testing is neither automatically granted nor automatically denied. Courts apply the principle of proportionality and assess whether the interests of justice justify the intrusion into privacy.

Significance

The issue reflects the growing intersection of:

• Constitutional rights.
• Family law.
• Scientific evidence.
• Privacy jurisprudence.

It also demonstrates how courts are increasingly moving from rigid legal presumptions towards a balanced framework that accommodates both technological advances and fundamental rights.