Article 1: Just truths
Why in news: DNA testing helps courts determine biological parentage with scientific accuracy when paternity is disputed, ensuring justice, protecting children's rights, and resolving cases where conventional evidence is insufficient.
Key Details
- Goutam Kundu (1993) – DNA tests not to be ordered routinely; strong prima facie case required.
- Shri Banarsi Dass (2005) – Child's legitimacy should not be undermined merely to satisfy curiosity.
- Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik (2014) – Scientific truth may prevail over legal presumptions when justice demands.
- K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) – Genetic information forms part of the fundamental right to privacy.
- CP vs AP (2026) – DNA testing permitted only when necessary, proportionate, and essential for resolving paternity disputes.
Protection of Child’s Legitimacy
- The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 prioritize protecting children from the stigma of illegitimacy.
- Burden of proof is generally placed on the person denying paternity.
- Courts seek to safeguard the social and legal status of the child.
Cautious Use of DNA Testing (1993–2005)
- In Goutam Kundu (1993), the Supreme Court held that DNA tests should not be ordered routinely.
- Courts must first establish a strong prima facie case before directing such tests.
- Shri Banarsi Dass (2005) reaffirmed this principle and emphasized legitimacy over mere forensic curiosity.
Acceptance of Scientific Evidence (2010–2014)
- In the Rohit Shekhar–N.D. Tiwari case, courts ordered a DNA test despite privacy objections.
- Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik (2014) held that reliable scientific evidence can prevail over legal presumptions in the interest of justice.
- Dipanwita Roy (2014) recognized that refusal to undergo DNA testing may lead to an adverse inference.
Privacy and Proportionality after Puttaswamy
- K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) recognized privacy, including genetic information, as a fundamental right under Article 21.
- Introduced the tests of legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality.
- Aparna Ajinkya Firodia (2023) ruled that DNA tests should be ordered only when necessary and when other evidence is insufficient.
Present Legal Position (2025–2026)
- Ivan Rathinam (2025) balanced the right to privacy with the right to know one's parentage.
- CP vs AP (2026) upheld DNA testing where paternity could not be resolved through existing evidence.
- Courts now treat DNA testing as a measure of last resort, permitting it only when it is necessary, proportionate, and essential for justice while respecting individual rights and bodily autonomy.
Conclusion
The evolution of India's paternity jurisprudence reflects a careful balance between scientific advancement and constitutional rights. While DNA testing offers near-conclusive proof of parentage, courts have rightly treated it as a measure of last resort. By applying the principles of necessity, proportionality, and justice, the judiciary seeks to protect both the search for truth and the fundamental right to privacy.
Descriptive question:
Q. "Scientific evidence can strengthen justice, but it must not undermine individual rights." Examine in the context of DNA testing. (10 marks, 150 words)