No right to DNA test, paternity determined by legitimacy: SC
“Forcefully undergoing a DNA test would subject an individual’s private life to scrutiny from the outside world," the Supreme Court bench observed.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that an individual does not have a legal right to seek a DNA test on another person to prove paternity, underscoring that such an inquiry could lead to a “collateral infringement of privacy” and potentially eviscerate a person’s reputation and standing in society.
Highlighting that probe into personal matters such as paternity must be handled with the utmost care and circumspection, a bench led by justice Surya Kant held that the right to dignity and privacy, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, must guide courts when evaluating such requests.
“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,” held the bench, also comprising justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Navigating the complex intersection of privacy, dignity and legitimate interests, the judgment sends a clear message that courts must act cautiously when addressing sensitive matters of paternity, setting a high bar for judicial scrutiny in such disputes that intrinsically involve fundamental rights and societal interest.
The verdict came while setting aside a 2018 Kerala high court order that had permitted a man to seek a DNA test of his alleged biological father to claim maintenance. The apex court observed that while the pursuit of truth is central to justice, it cannot come at the cost of violating fundamental rights.
'Must be mindful of…'
{{/usCountry}}The verdict came while setting aside a 2018 Kerala high court order that had permitted a man to seek a DNA test of his alleged biological father to claim maintenance. The apex court observed that while the pursuit of truth is central to justice, it cannot come at the cost of violating fundamental rights.
'Must be mindful of…'
{{/usCountry}}“While permitting an enquiry into a person’s paternity vide a DNA test, we must be mindful of the collateral infringement of privacy,” said the bench, holding that once the presumption of legitimacy of the child under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is established, there is no need for courts to delve into the question of paternity unless the evidence is insufficient, or the test is demonstrably in the best interests of the parties. The court held that this presumption could only be displaced by proving “non-access” between the mother and her husband during the relevant period.
{{/usCountry}}“While permitting an enquiry into a person’s paternity vide a DNA test, we must be mindful of the collateral infringement of privacy,” said the bench, holding that once the presumption of legitimacy of the child under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is established, there is no need for courts to delve into the question of paternity unless the evidence is insufficient, or the test is demonstrably in the best interests of the parties. The court held that this presumption could only be displaced by proving “non-access” between the mother and her husband during the relevant period.
{{/usCountry}}“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 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,” it emphasised.
Section 112 of the Evidence Act has been engrafted as Section 116 in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, effective from July 2024.
The judgment, penned by justice Kant, delved into the potential harm such paternity inquiries can inflict on all stakeholders, particularly when allegations of infidelity are involved.
“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,” noted the bench.
The judgment further elaborated on the interplay between “paternity” and “legitimacy”, underscoring that legitimacy determines paternity under Section 112 until the presumption is successfully rebutted by proving non-access. It also noted that “legitimacy is not an independent circle” in the Venn diagram of paternity and legitimacy; rather, it is “entombed within paternity.”
Stressing the importance of dignity and privacy in such disputes, the court said: “Usually in cases concerning legitimacy, it is the child’s dignity and privacy that have to be protected, as they primarily come under the line of fire. Though in this instance, the child is a major and is voluntarily submitting himself to this test, he is not the only stakeholder bearing personal interest in the results, whatever they may be. The effects of social stigma surrounding an illegitimate child make their way into the parents’ lives as there may be undue scrutiny owing to the alleged infidelity.”
In this case, the court pointed out that when the existence of marriage and cohabitation between the man’s parents was proved on record, mere allegation of an extramarital relationship of his mother alone could not displace the presumption of his legitimacy. “What needs to be clarified is that an ‘additional’ access or ‘multiple’ access does not automatically negate the access between the spouses and prove non-access thereof,” it said.
In its final directions, the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings initiated by the man, declaring the legal position that legitimacy determines paternity under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, until the presumption is successfully rebutted by proving a complete “non-access” of the spouses to have marital relations with each other.
