Supreme Court Holds DNA Test Not Warranted Where Presumption of Legitimacy Remains Unrebutted

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi heard the appeal against a Madras High Court order that had directed the appellant to appear for DNA profiling in connection with criminal proceedings alleging cheating and harassment. The question before the Court was whether the High Court was justified in directing compulsory DNA testing to determine paternity in the context of the registered FIR.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's direction for DNA sampling, holding that the statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act remained unrebutted and that DNA testing could not be ordered as a matter of course. The judges emphasised that such intrusive measures required “eminent need” and a careful balance of interests including the right to privacy. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further quoted precedent framing the threshold for DNA directions: "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 also relied on the constitutional standard that any invasion of privacy must meet the threefold test of "legality, need and proportionality."

Background The dispute arose from a complaint by respondent No.1 who alleged that the appellant — a medical practitioner — had an extramarital relationship with her while she was married to Abdul Latheef, resulting in the birth of a child on 08.03.2007. An FIR was registered in June 2014 under Sections 417 and 420 IPC and Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act. The investigation sought DNA profiling of the appellant, respondent No.1 and the child; directions were issued at different stages by the Madras High Court to collect blood samples, some of which were set aside for procedural reasons and later reissued. The Division Bench’s impugned order dated 10.05.2017 directed the appellant to appear before the Dean, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai for sample collection by 19.05.2017, prompting this appeal.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that DNA testing could be ordered only in exceptional cases, invoked the conclusive presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act and pointed to documentary records (birth and school certificates) naming Abdul Latheef as father; he also highlighted privacy concerns and the absence of pleaded non-access. Respondent No.1 urged that scientific proof was necessary in a criminal investigation and relied on precedents where DNA evidence was admitted. The Court analysed the statutory framework of Section 112, authorities governing DNA directions (including Goutam Kundu, Sharda, Bhabani Prasad Jena and Ivan Rathinam), and the constitutional right to privacy (K.S. Puttaswamy), stressing that non-access must be affirmatively and strongly established to displace the presumption. The Court found no specific pleading or cogent evidence of non-access by Abdul Latheef at the time of conception, observed that the existing documentary record consistently recorded Abdul Latheef as father, and held that the paternity issue was collateral to the criminal charges and did not demonstrate an "eminent need" for the intrusive test. The Court rejected the contention that an adverse inference under Section 114 could be drawn before any order for testing, noted the ethical and privacy implications (particularly as the child had by then attained majority), and concluded that Sections 53/53A CrPC were inapplicable in this context. The result: the impugned High Court order directing DNA testing was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 1304 (Criminal Appeal No.1013 of 2021) Case Title: R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment text For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment text