Case in News:The Supreme Court, in ordering dna test without offence nexus unwarranted says supreme court reiterated that courts must not order DNA profiling casually, especially when it infringes privacy and risks illegitimising a child born within wedlock . |
Step into the world of justice with Courtroom Chronicles
Case Overview :
Case Name: RAJENDRAN VERSUS KAMAR NISHA AND OTHERS
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi set aside the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) order that compelled a doctor to undergo a DNA test in a paternity dispute . The Court emphasised that Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for children born during a valid marriage which cannot be displaced by mere suspicion or allegations .
Discover powerful Latin Maxims and simplify complex legal terms in seconds.
Key Aspects :
The Court first examined the factual background, which revolved around allegations of an extramarital affair and a child’s paternity . It clarified that DNA testing, though scientifically accurate, must not be ordered merely for speculative purposes or to satisfy curiosity .
- The respondent alleged that her child, born in 2007, was fathered by the appellant during her marriage .
- An FIR was lodged under Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act .
- The Madras High Court directed DNA profiling despite no direct link between paternity and the alleged offences .
- The Supreme Court found that paternity was only a collateral issue and unnecessary for proving the charges .
Legal Insights :
Before delving into the ruling, the Court reiterated the need for a strict legal foundation before ordering a DNA test, balancing scientific truth with constitutional and statutory protections .
- Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – establishes a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage, rebuttable only by proof of “non-access” between spouses .
- Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India – safeguard the right against self-incrimination and ensure the right to privacy and bodily autonomy .
- Sections 53 and 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – permit medical examination of an accused only when it bears a direct nexus to the alleged offence .
- The Court relied on Ivan Rathinam vs. Milan Joseph, , which mandates a two-fold test before ordering DNA testing: (i) insufficiency of other evidence, and (ii) positive balance of competing interests .
Court’s Verdict :
The Supreme Court held that ordering a DNA test without a nexus to the alleged offences is unwarranted and a violation of privacy . The presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 remained intact as non-access was not proven . The direction for DNA profiling was thus quashed, upholding the presumption of child legitimacy and reaffirming constitutional safeguards of dignity and bodily autonomy .
Source – Supreme Court of India
Read also – Constitution of India
The LawGist ensures exam success with quality notes—TPL, Current Affairs, Recent Judgments, and more. Backed by trusted resources and videos, The LawGist is every aspirant’s first choice.
