​Just truths: On DNA evidence and rights

To support children from the stigma of illegitimacy, the erstwhile Indian Evidence Act 1872 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 spot the load of impervious connected the enactment denying paternity alternatively than the enactment seeking confirmation. The Supreme Court of India archetypal considered the challenges posed by DNA evidence successful this regard, successful Goutam Kundu (1993), wherever it held that DNA tests could not beryllium ordered arsenic a substance of regular and that courts indispensable archetypal measure whether a beardown prima facie lawsuit had been made out. It reiterated this presumption successful Shri Banarsi Dass (2005); some cases besides reinforced the extortion of legitimacy implicit immoderate involvement successful forensic curiosity. Then, successful the litigation mooted by Rohit Shekhar alleging that seasoned person N.D. Tiwari was his father, the Delhi High Court and the apical tribunal called for the trial contempt Mr. Tiwari insisting that his close to privateness was being violated. In Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik (2014), the Court said that erstwhile reliable technological impervious confronts ineligible fiction, the erstwhile whitethorn prevail successful the involvement of justice; successful Dipanwita Roy (2014), it acknowledged that refusing investigating tin pb to adverse inference. Both orders besides confirmed the legitimacy of DNA tests based connected need.

Then, successful K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), arsenic it encoded the close to privateness — including of familial information — arsenic a cardinal close nether Article 21, the Court introduced a constraint that anterior paternity jurisprudence did not person to reckon with. The threefold trial it acceptable up, of legality, morganatic aims, and proportionality, was brought to carnivore successful Aparna Ajinkya Firodia (2023), which concluded that DNA tests should beryllium ordered lone wherever they are indispensable and proportionate, and not if a quality could beryllium resolved based connected different evidence. In Ivan Rathinam (2025), the Court said neither privateness nor cognition were implicit and that the judiciary besides has to negociate stigma and necessity. Its bid successful CP vs AP (2026) tied each these contentions unneurotic arsenic it upheld a proceedings court’s absorption for a DNA trial connected the grounds that the disputed question of paternity could not beryllium resolved by the existing worldly grounds and required a technological determination, by applying necessity and proportionality considerations. In the post-Puttaswamy era, then, the Constitution protects bodily autonomy and restricts compelled familial disclosure — but courts could bid a DNA trial if paternity is straight successful issue, determination is nary different grounds connected grounds susceptible of resolving the question, and the trial would service the involvement of justice. Thus, by positioning DNA investigating arsenic a past resort, the courts person to guarantee that portion subject whitethorn beryllium infallible, the pursuit of information is lone conscionable erstwhile it respects a person’s rights.