Why in news?

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a challenge against orders directing a man (referred to as CP) to undergo a DNA test. The case was filed by a person claiming to be CP's biological son, who sought both a declaration of paternity and a share in CP's property.

CP had been denying the claim since 1999 — over two decades. The Court upheld the DNA test order, balancing CP's right to privacy against the alleged son's right to establish his identity and inheritance.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Background: The Legal Framework
• Evolution Through Case Law
• The Three-Part Test: When Can a Court Order a DNA Test
• The Present Case: How the Court Decided
• Analysis: Important Dimensions Touched by This Judgement

Background: The Legal Framework

• Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (Earlier it was Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act)
  • When a child is born during a valid marriage — or within 280 days of its dissolution — the law presumes that child to be the legitimate child of the husband.
  • This presumption can only be overturned by proving that the husband and wife had no access to each other at the time of conception.
  • Mere suspicion or assertion is not enough. The intent is clear: protect the child's legitimacy and dignity.
• The Problem: No Law Explicitly Allows DNA Testing
  • There is no statute in India that expressly authorises courts to order DNA tests.
  • The entire framework has evolved through judge-made law — that is, through Supreme Court judgments over the years.

Evolution Through Case Law

• The Supreme Court's position on DNA testing in paternity disputes has developed gradually, with each case adding a new layer of nuance.
• 
• The common thread across all these judgments: courts are reluctant to order DNA tests and will do so only as a last resort.

The Three-Part Test: When Can a Court Order a DNA Test

• The Supreme Court laid down three conditions that must be satisfied:
  • Paternity must be directly in issue — it must be the central question in the case, not a peripheral one.
  • No other evidence should be available — if paternity can be established through other means, a DNA test should not be ordered.
  • It must be in the best interest of the parties or justice — the court must weigh the harm of ordering the test against the harm of not ordering it.

The Present Case: How the Court Decided?

• In this case, all three conditions were met. CP had denied paternity for over 20 years.
• There was no other evidence on record. The alleged son had no other way to establish his identity or claim his inheritance.
• The Court framed the issue honestly: CP's right to privacy was real, but so was the alleged son's right to closure on a question that had defined his entire life.
• Denying the test would mean denying him rights he might legitimately be entitled to — forever.
• The Court therefore upheld the DNA test order.

Ethical Dimensions Touched by This Judgement

• Right to Privacy (Article 21) — The Puttaswamy judgment (2017) recognised privacy as a fundamental right. This case shows that even fundamental rights are not absolute — they must be balanced against competing rights and interests.
• Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint — Courts have built an entire framework on DNA testing without any legislative backing. This raises questions about the role of the judiciary in filling legislative gaps.
• Rights of the Child — The tension between a child's right to legitimacy and a child's right to know their biological identity is a recurring theme in family law.