Back
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
R. Rajendran – Appellant
Versus
Kamar Nisha – Respondent
The threefold test for allowing a DNA petition involves evaluating the following criteria:
Legality: The order for DNA testing must be grounded in a lawful framework, ensuring that the procedure is authorized by law and complies with constitutional and statutory safeguards. The test emphasizes that the process should be conducted within the boundaries of legal provisions and respect individual rights (!) .
Legitimate State Aim: The purpose of the DNA test must serve a genuine and legitimate objective, such as establishing biological paternity to support or refute allegations relevant to the case. The test should not be employed arbitrarily or for collateral reasons that do not directly relate to the core issues of the case (!) .
Proportionality: The intrusion caused by the DNA testing must be proportionate to the importance of the objective. This means the test should be necessary and not cause undue harm or infringement on personal privacy and dignity. The potential benefits of establishing truth or justice should outweigh the privacy and personal liberty interests at stake (!) .
In favor of allowing the DNA petition, the court would find that the test is conducted within a lawful framework, aims to serve a legitimate purpose directly related to the case, and is proportionate to the importance of uncovering the truth while safeguarding individual rights.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of extramarital relationships. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments related to presumption of legitimacy. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. explanation of section 112 of the evidence act. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. conditions for dna profiling in legal matters. (Para 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 5. standards for rebutting presumption of legitimacy. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 6. balancing privacy rights with legal obligations. (Para 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 7. implications of dna tests on individual privacy. (Para 50 , 51 , 53 , 54) |
| 8. final conclusion rejecting the direction for dna testing. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61) |
JUDGMENT
1) This Appeal calls in question the impugned judgment dated 10.05.2017 passed by High Court of Madras at Madurai in Writ Appeal (MD) No.521 of 2017, whereby the High Court directed the appellant to appear before the Dean, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai on or before 19.05.2017, for collection of blood samples for DNA profiling as ordered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (MD) No.15208 of 2016.
2) Respondent No.1 married one Abdul Latheef in the year 2001. Abdul Latheef was suffering from a skin ailment and, therefore, he approached the appel
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
