DNA tests permissible in paternity disputes with prima facie non-access and balanced interests, overriding routine privacy objections.

COMMON ORDER

Challenging the impugned orders passed in I.A.No.4 of 2021 and I.A.No.

191 of 2024 in O.S.No.422 of 2020 and O.S.No.402 of 2020 by the learned Sub-Judge, Panruti, Cuddalore District respectively, the Revision Petitioners preferred these Civil Revision Petitions.

2.Before the trial court, there were two suits filed seeking for the relief of partition. The respondent Malathi in O.S.No.422 of 2020 claimed herself as wife of one Karthik @ Soundararajan and she also contended that out of marriage between them, she begotten a male child viz., Hari Prabakaran. But the said Karthik @ Soundararjan is disputing the alleged marriage as well as paternity of the child. Therefore, both of them filed applications to take D.N.A. test in I.A.Nos. 191 of 2021 and 04 of 2022. Both applications were allowed by the trial judge on hearing both sides. Aggrieved over that, the revision petitioners have preferred these Civil Revision Petitions.

3. The learned counsel for revision petitioners would submit that the order passed by the trial judge allowing the applications as such is not necessary to prove his paternity, however, it requires other relevant documents, but without considering the same, the trial judge erroneously allowed the applications. In support of their contentions, the learned counsel relied on the ratio laid down in the following authorities :-

“(i) Reported in 2022 (1) SCC 20 in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. Raj Gupta and others, wherein it has been held in para 15 as follows :-

15. DNA is unique to an individual (barring twins) and can be used to identify a person’s identity, trace familial linkages or even reveal sensitive health information. Whether a person can be compelled to provide a sample for DNA in such matters can also be answered considering the test of proportionality laid down in the unanimous decision of this court in K.S.Puttaswamy (Aashaar -5 J.)

vs. Union of India reported in 2019 (1) SCC 1, wherein the right to privacy has been declared a constitutionally protected right in India. The court should therefore examine the proportionality of the legitimate aims being pursued i.e. whether the same are not arbitrary or discriminatory, whether they may have an adverse impact on the person and that they justify the encroachment upon the privacy and personal autonomy of the person, being subjected to the DNA test.

ii) Reported in 2025 SCC Online 175 in the case of Ivan Rathinam vs. Milan Joseph, wherein it has been held in paras 30, 31 and 47 as follows :-

30. It is only when such an assertion is made, that the Court can consider the question of ordering a DNA test to establish paternity. In Goutam Kundu vs. State of W.B. (supra), this court laid down the following parameters to decide whether a court can order a DNA test for the purposes of Section 112 :

(1) that courts in India cannot order blood test as a matter of course;

(2) wherever applications are made for such prayers in order to have roving inquiry, the prayer for blood test cannot be entertained.

(3) There must be a strong prima facie case in that the husband must establish non-access in order to dispel the presumption arising under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.

(4) The court must carefully examine as to what would be the consequence of ordering the blood test; whether it will have the effect of branding a child as a bastard and the mother as an unchaste woman.

(5) No one can be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis.

31. These parameters have been subsequently followed by this court in Sharda v. Dharmpal (supra) and Babani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women (Supra.) In these cases, it was held that DNA tests may be ordered, only if a strong prima case of non-access is made out, with sufficient material placed before the court to arriv