Read Current Affairs
Paternity Disputes and DNA Testing: Legal and Constitutional Dimensions
General Studies Paper– II: Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice, and International Relations.
Context
The use of DNA testing in paternity disputes has become an important tool in the quest for truth; however, it constantly conflicts with the right to privacy and personal autonomy. In India, it is a complex balance between the interests of justice and the protection of an individual's fundamental rights.
What is DNA Testing?
DNA testing is a scientific process through which genetic material is analyzed to confirm or refute biological relationships, especially paternity. Legally, it is a forensic tool used when traditional evidence fails to resolve a dispute.
- Basic Principle: Each individual's DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) is unique, found in the nucleus of their cells.
- Process: In this test, genetic data is analyzed from the individual's biological sample (such as blood, saliva, or hair roots).
- Scientific Certainty: This test is considered an infallible means for scientific determination, as it presents concrete proof of biological relationships.
Reasons for Discussion
Judicial Intervention: Recently, cases like CP vs. AP (2026) have clarified the limitations of ordering DNA tests.
- Legal Development: Re-evaluation of the burden of proof under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 and the predecessor Act.
- Digital and Scientific Era: The debate over the infallibility of scientific evidence versus an individual’s physical integrity.
Legal and Constitutional Provisions
To protect children from the stigma of illegitimacy, under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the burden of proof lies on the party denying paternity, not on the party seeking confirmation. Article 21 of the Constitution, as established in the K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) case, makes privacy a fundamental right, which includes genetic data.
Supreme Court Judgments and Guidelines
Gautam Kundu (1993): DNA testing cannot be ordered routinely; a 'prima facie' case must be established first.
- Shri Banarsi Dass (2005): Priority was given to the protection of legitimacy over forensic curiosity.
- Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik (2014): If scientific proof and legal fiction are at odds, scientific proof shall prevail in the interest of justice.
- Dipanwita Roy (2014): An adverse inference can be drawn upon refusal to undergo the test.
- Aparna Ajinkya Firodia (2023): Test to be ordered only when necessary and proportionate, and in the absence of other options. The 'three-fold test' (legality, legitimate aim, proportionality) of the K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) case was applied.
- Ivan Rathinam (2025): Privacy and knowledge are not absolute; the judiciary must balance between stigma and necessity.
- CP vs. AP (2026): Test approved based on necessity and proportionality.
Importance of this Subject
Determining paternity is not only essential for legal inheritance, but it also directly affects the child's future and social reputation. The use of scientific evidence has become indispensable to remove uncertainty and ensure justice.
Concerns
The primary concern is the violation of the right to privacy and mandatory genetic disclosure. Also, the question remains whether forensic curiosity is more important than an individual’s physical autonomy.
Necessity
DNA testing is considered necessary only when:
- Paternity is directly the subject of the dispute.
- No other evidence capable of resolving the question is available on record.
- It is in the interest of justice.
Analysis
Post-Puttaswamy (2017), the judiciary's stance has changed. Courts no longer rely solely on scientific conclusions but strictly adhere to the three-fold test laid down in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia (2023). It is clear that DNA testing is now viewed as a 'last resort,' which balances the protection of physical autonomy and the quest for truth.
Way Forward
Adherence to Proportionality: Courts must ensure that the test is 'necessary' and 'proportionate'.
- Priority to Other Evidence: Before ordering a scientific test, there should be an in-depth analysis of other material available on record.
- Balance: The judiciary must respect human rights while striking a balance between stigma and necessity.
Conclusion
DNA testing can be an infallible tool in the quest for truth, but it is legitimate only when it does not violate an individual's fundamental rights. India's current jurisprudence has established DNA testing as a last resort. It is mandatory to ensure that scientific determination is made only when all other paths are closed, thereby maintaining the protection of physical autonomy and privacy guaranteed by the Constitution.