The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that while permitting an enquiry into somebody's paternity by a DNA test, the courts must be mindful of the collateral infringement of privacy of the child and the parents.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, which brought the curtain down on a two-decade-old dispute over paternity by a person from Kerala, laid down the procedure on when can the court order a DNA test to ascertain paternity.
The bench said, "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."
The bench said there has to be balancing of interests and court must assess the eminent need for a DNA test.
"On one hand, courts must protect the parties' rights to privacy and dignity by evaluating whether the social stigma from one of them being declared 'illegitimate' would cause them disproportionate harm. On the other hand, courts must assess the child's legitimate interest in knowing his biological father and whether there is an eminent need for a DNA test," it said.
The bench said 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.
That apart, the courts must also remain abreast with the effects such a probe would have on other relevant stakeholders, especially women. Casting aspersions on a married woman's fidelity would ruin her reputation, status, and dignity and she would be castigated in society, it said.
The top court refused to agree with the Kerala high court's view ordering a DNA test for ascertaining the paternity of the child (now adult) for payment of maintenance.
The top court added that when dealing with the question of eminent need for a DNA test to prove paternity, the court needs to balance the interests of those involved and must consider whether it is possible to reach the truth without the use of such a test.
"First and foremost, the courts must, therefore, consider the existing evidence to assess the presumption of legitimacy. If that evidence is insufficient to come to a finding, only then should the court consider ordering a DNA test.
"Once the insufficiency of evidence is established, the court must consider whether ordering a DNA test is in the best interests of the parties involved and must ensure that it does not cause undue harm to the parties. There are thus two blockades to ordering a DNA test: (i) insufficiency of evidence; and (ii) a positive finding regarding the balance of interests," it said.
Referring to the KS Puttaswamy 2017 verdict (privacy judgement) of the apex court, the bench said it has been held that 'an invasion of life or personal liberty must meet the threefold requirement of (i) legality, which postulates the existence of law; (ii) need, defined in terms of a legitimate State aim; and (iii) proportionality which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them'.
"In this context, while permitting an enquiry into a person's paternity vide a DNA test, we must be mindful of the collateral infringement of privacy. For this, the court must satisfy itself that the threshold for the three conditions (in 2017 verdict) is satisfied. If even one of these conditions fails, it is considered an unwarranted invasion of privacy and consequently, of life and personal liberty as embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution," the bench held.
Justice Surya Kant, who penned the verdict on behalf of the bench, said that 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. It is in this backdrop that the Appellant's right to privacy and dignity have to be considered," he said.
The bench further said though in the instant case, the respondent's mother is actively associated in propagating this vexatious litigation, one can only imagine the repercussions in other cases where a child, in utter disregard to the sentiments and self-respect of their mother, initiates proceedings seeking a declaration of paternity?
"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," it said.
The bench further said that 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 law provides for a mode to attain a particular object, that mode must be satisfied. 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 said.
© 2025