2025 Supreme(SC) 1905

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, JJ.
R. Rajendran – Appellant
Versus
Kamar Nisha And Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1013 of 2021
Decided On : 10-11-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Paternity of child – Presumption under Section 112 of Evidence Act operates as “Conclusive Proof” of legitimacy of a child born during subsistence of a valid marriage, by presuming that parents had access to each other at relevant time – Infidelity on wife’s part does not, by itself, displace presumption of legitimacy if husband had access.
(2) DNA testing – Forcefully subjecting an individual to DNA testing constitutes grave intrusion upon privacy and personal liberty – Such an encroachment can be justified only if it satisfies threefold test of legality, legitimate State aim, and proportionality.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 112 read with Section 4 – Paternity of child – Presumption under Section 112 of Evidence Act operates as “Conclusive Proof” of legitimacy of a child born during subsistence of a valid marriage, by presuming that parents had access to each other at relevant time – Embedded in this presumption is legal recognition that husband is deemed to be father of child born to his wife – This presumption also operates as a safeguard against unwarranted intrusion into legally protected status of legitimacy, thereby ensuring stability in familial relationships and protection of child’s legal and social identity – Since law favours legitimacy and frowns upon illegitimacy, burden is cast upon person who asserts “illegitimacy” to displace the presumption. (Paras 23 and 24)

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 112 – Paternity of child – DNA testing – “Access” or “non-access” under Section 112 of Evidence Act must be understood in a very narrow and specific sense, referring to possibility of sexual relations between spouses – Lack of cohabitation alone does not establish non-access, nor does existence of extra-marital relations, separate residences, or non-communication – Allegations of multiple or simultaneous access by third parties do not negate access between spouses or establish non-access – Likewise, infidelity on wife’s part does not, by itself, displace presumption of legitimacy if husband had access – Focus remains on child’s birth, while time of conception is relevant only to determine whether access between spouses existed – DNA testing cannot be ordered as a matter of course and must be subject to stringent safeguards to protect dignity of individuals and legitimacy of children born during wedlock – Power to direct such tests must be exercised with utmost circumspection and only when interests of justice imperatively demand such an intrusive procedure. (Paras 25, 26 and 28)

(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 112 read with Section 114 – Paternity of child – Direction to undergo DNA testing – Standard of proof required to displace presumption under Section 112 of Evidence Act must be higher than mere preponderance of probabilities, yet need not reach exacting criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Standard must be sufficiently rigorous to ensure that there existed no possibility of child being conceived through husband – When there is apparent conflict between right to privacy and bodily integrity on one hand, and Court’s duty to ascertain truth on other, judicial discretion must be exercised with utmost care – Such direction can be issued only after scrupulous balancing of interests of all parties and upon due consideration of whether, for a just decision in the matter, DNA test is eminently necessary – Proposed DNA test fails to satisfy Constitutional requisites – There exists no legitimate aim that necessitates such an intrusive procedure, since criminal allegations of cheating and harassment can be investigated and adjudicated on strength of other evidence, without delving into question of biological paternity – Unless presumption under Section 112 is first rebutted, no occasion arises for directing DNA test – Conversely, where prerequisites for ordering such a test are not satisfied, question of drawing any adverse inference from appellant’s refusal to undergo it does not arise at all – Direction for DNA testing without considering ramifications causes risks inflicting irreversible psychological and social harm – Impugned judgment set aside. (Paras 34, 38, 48, 50 and 51)

(D) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 112 – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Paternity of child – Direction to undergo DNA testing – Forcefully subjecting an individual to DNA testing constitutes grave intrusion upon privacy and personal liberty – Such an encroachment can be justified only if it satisfies threefold test of legality, legitimate State aim, and proportionality – Child has now attained majority – Such direction would constitute significant intrusion into privacy and dignity of both, appellant and child, implicating fundamental right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India – Paternity of child is collateral to primary allegations of cheating and harassment – FIR itself reveals that gravamen of allegations bears no nexus to paternity of child – Merely because such testing is legally permissible in certain contexts does not justify its use as a matter of course – Direction for DNA testing, as affirmed by Division Bench, rests upon fundamental misapprehension of both statutory framework and constitutional safeguards – Scientific procedures, however advanced, cannot be employed as instruments of speculation; they must be anchored in demonstrable relevance to charge and justified by compelling investigative need – Impugned judgment passed by High Court set aside. (Paras 45, 46, 57, 59 and 60)

Facts of the case:

The question which arises for consideration is - whether the High Court was justified in directing appellant to undergo DNA testing for checking paternity of child.

Findings of Court:

Absent that nexus, compulsion of a DNA test transforms a lawful investigative power into an intrusive measure devoid of necessity, trenching upon the individual’s bodily autonomy, privacy. Scientific procedures, however advanced, cannot be employed as instruments of speculation; they must be anchored in demonstrable relevance to the charge and justified by compelling investigative need.

Result : Appeal allowed.