Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-001013-001013 – 2021 |
| Diary Number | 16058/2017 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents on DNA testing safeguards; does not overrule prior law |
| Type of Law | Criminal procedure; evidence law; constitutional right to privacy |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Supreme Court held that Section 112 of the Evidence Act creates a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for any child born during a valid marriage, displaceable only by strong, unambiguous proof of non-access between spouses at conception. DNA profiling is not a matter of course and may be directed only if (i) existing evidence is insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption and (ii) the balance of interests—privacy, dignity, and proportionality—favors such intrusion. Here, no plea or proof of non-access was made, official records consistently named the husband as father, and paternity was collateral to criminal charges, so DNA testing could not be compelled. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Respondent’s child was born in 2007 during her valid marriage. FIR for cheating (Sec 417, 420 IPC) and harassment was registered in 2014 alleging appellant’s paternity. Magistrate and Single Judge directed DNA profiling; appellant repeatedly refused. High Court upheld the direction. Appeal to Supreme Court challenged both statutory and constitutional basis. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts, trial courts in paternity and criminal investigations requiring forensic evidence |
| Distinguishes |
|
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that conclusive presumption under Section 112 Evidence Act can be displaced only by strong, unambiguous proof of non-access at conception.
- Confirms DNA profiling directions require both (i) insufficiency of existing evidence to rebut legitimacy and (ii) positive balance of interests—privacy, dignity, proportionality.
- Clarifies that adverse inference under Section 114 Evidence Act cannot be drawn unless a DNA test order first lawfully issues.
- Limits the scope of Sections 53/53A CrPC to situations where medical examination including DNA profiling has a direct nexus with commission of the alleged offence.
- Emphasizes that paternity is collateral in criminal prosecutions for cheating/harassment and cannot justify intrusive testing without necessity.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Section 112 Evidence Act creates a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for any child born during a valid marriage, rebuttable only by proving non-access at conception with strong evidence (Kamti Devi).
- DNA profiling is an intrusive measure that courts may direct only in exceptional cases: not as a matter of course, not for roving inquiries, and only if justice imperatively demands it (Goutam Kundu; Sharda; Bhabani Prasad Jena).
- The “twin blockade” test requires (i) existing evidence must be insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption; and (ii) the court must conclude—and record—that the balance of privacy and dignity versus investigative need favors testing (Ivan Rathinam).
- Absent any plea or proof of non-access, and with official documents consistently naming the husband as father, the Court found evidentiary sufficiency precluding DNA testing.
- Right to privacy under Article 21 demands any intrusion satisfy legality, legitimate State aim, and proportionality (Puttaswamy); here, no legitimate aim justified paternity testing in cheating/harassment probe.
- Paternity was collateral to the offences under Sections 417/420 IPC and Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act; coercive DNA profiling for collateral facts violates bodily autonomy and privacy (Inayath Ali).
- Sections 53/53A CrPC permit medical examination only where it directly relates to proof of the alleged offence; no such nexus existed here.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- DNA testing permissible only in exceptional cases; not for speculative inquiries.
- Section 112 conclusive presumption of legitimacy bars test unless non-access established.
- Child has attained majority; no compelling need; birth and school records name husband.
- Right to privacy and bodily integrity prohibits forced testing.
Respondent
- DNA profiling essential to prove cheating and harassment charges by establishing biological paternity.
- Victim’s voluntary consent waives her privacy; scientific advancement overrides presumptions.
- Appellant’s refusal justifies adverse inference under Section 114 Evidence Act.
Factual Background
Respondent No. 1 had an extramarital relationship with the appellant resulting in a child born on 08.03.2007 during her valid marriage. In 2014 she lodged an FIR for cheating (Sections 417, 420 IPC) and harassment, alleging appellant’s paternity. The Magistrate and Madras High Court directed DNA profiling; appellant repeatedly refused. The Division Bench affirmed the direction; Supreme Court granted special leave to challenge the statutory and constitutional authority to compel DNA testing.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 112, Evidence Act: Conclusive proof of legitimacy for any child born during a valid marriage, displaceable only by proof of non-access at relevant time.
- Sections 53 & 53A, CrPC: Authorize medical examination—including DNA profiling—only if examination “will afford evidence as to commission of offence”; require direct nexus to offence.
- Section 114, Evidence Act: Permits adverse inference from refusal to produce evidence, but only after lawful order to submit.
- Article 21, Constitution: Right to privacy and bodily integrity; any intrusion must meet legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed