DNA Test Cannot Be Ordered Routinely in Partition Suits; Non-Access Must Be Proven Under S.112 Evidence Act: Karnataka High Court - 2025-09-01

Court Cases & Legal News.

DNA Test Violates Privacy if 'Non-Access' Isn't Proven, Cannot Be a Frolicsome Act: Karnataka HC Quashes Order in Partition Suit

BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling on the interplay between paternity disputes, the right to privacy, and the law of evidence, has quashed a trial court's order directing a DNA test in a property partition suit. Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that ordering such a test without first establishing the condition of "non-access" under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act is an infringement of the fundamental rights to privacy and dignity.

The single-judge bench, while allowing the writ petition filed by Sri Hareesh @ Harishkumar, declared that courts cannot permit DNA tests "for the asking" and must not treat them as a "frolicsome act."

Case Background

The case originated from a partition suit (O.S.No.89/2016) filed by Sri A.S. Umesh and Sri A.S. Lokesh (plaintiffs). They sought a share in ancestral properties, challenging the legitimacy of the petitioner, Sri Hareesh (defendant No. 3), who claimed to be the son of defendant No. 1 (A.C. Sannegowda) and defendant No. 2 (Smt. Lakshmamma).

Eight years into the litigation, after the plaintiffs' evidence was completed, they filed an application for a DNA test of defendant No. 1 and the petitioner. They argued that defendant No. 1 had undergone a vasectomy in 1979, making it impossible for him to have fathered the petitioner, who was born around 1986. The trial court in Channarayapatna allowed this application, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.

Arguments Presented

• Petitioner's Counsel (Sri Vijay Krishna Bhat M.): The petitioner argued that the trial court's order was a grave violation of his right to privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. He contended that Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act creates a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage. This presumption can only be rebutted by proving that the parties to the marriage had "no access to each other" when the child could have been conceived. The plaintiffs had failed to plead or prove this essential condition.

• Respondents' Counsel (Sri M. Murali Babu): The plaintiffs countered that the vasectomy of defendant No. 1 was a crucial fact that made the DNA test imperative to uncover the truth. They argued that the petitioner was a "stranger to the family" attempting to unlawfully claim a share in the joint family property.

Court's Analysis and Legal Precedents

Justice Nagaprasanna undertook a detailed analysis of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act and a catena of Supreme Court judgments, including landmark cases like Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal and the recent Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia .

The Court emphasized the legal maxim pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant (the father is he whom the marriage indicates), which forms the bedrock of Section 112. The judgment highlighted that this presumption is a matter of public policy aimed at ensuring social peace and protecting children from being bastardized.

Citing the Supreme Court, the bench reiterated key principles:

1. Courts cannot order a blood test as a matter of course or to facilitate a "roving inquiry."

2. There must be a strong prima facie case of "non-access" to displace the presumption under Section 112.

3. The court must carefully balance the quest for truth with the individual's right to privacy, considering the potential devastating consequences of such a test.

The court observed that forcing an unwilling individual to undergo a DNA test impinges on their personal liberty and privacy. It noted, "The Court answering an application must bear in mind the interwoven delicate balance between the test, right to privacy and dignity, as ordained in the Constitution of India."

Pivotal Excerpts from the Judgment

The court strongly criticized the trial court's approach:

"In the absence of any pleading of the kind, the concerned Court has treated the DNA test as a frolicsome act and ordered as a matter of course. Right to privacy and dignity is lost sight of. Therefore, on all the aforesaid circumstances, the order of the concerned Court is rendered unsustainable..."

Highlighting the failure to meet the legal threshold, the judgment stated:

"...the concerned Court ignores every tenet; there was no imminent need for conducting a DNA test; the order ignores the purport of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act and presumption of paternity is given a go-bye. No material is placed before the Court depicting non-access at the time of birth."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the trial court's order dated April 5, 2025. It further declared that any consequential proceedings, including a DNA examination or report, were "null and void in the eyes of law."

In a directive with wider ramifications, the Registry was instructed to circulate the order to all concerned courts to ensure the principles laid down are followed when deciding on applications for DNA tests. This judgment serves as a strong cautionary note to lower courts against ordering invasive scientific tests in civil disputes without strictly adhering to the rigorous standards set by the law of evidence and constitutional protections.