World
India
The Supreme Court has reinforced the fundamental right to privacy in cases concerning paternity disputes, particularly those involving DNA testing.
A bench comprising of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized that compelling an individual to undergo genetic testing constitutes a profound intrusion into personal autonomy, exposing them to external scrutiny that may have severe social, psychological, and reputational consequences.
This ruling marks the conclusion of a protracted legal battle in Kerala spanning over two decades.
The court recognized that judicial orders mandating DNA testing, especially in cases involving allegations of infidelity, have the potential to inflict irreversible harm.
Such measures can undermine an individual’s dignity, erode their standing in society, and result in long-lasting emotional distress. Accordingly, the bench articulated the necessity of a judicious and balanced approach when adjudicating requests for DNA testing.
“On one hand, courts must protect the parties’ rights to privacy and dignity by evaluating whether the social stigma from one of them being declared ‘illegitimate’ would cause them disproportionate harm. On the other hand, courts must assess the child’s legitimate interest in knowing his biological father and whether there is an eminent need for a DNA test,” the bench stated.
The ruling also underscored the broader societal implications of an illegitimacy declaration, cautioning that such determinations can invite undue scrutiny into the private lives of the child’s parents and give rise to accusations that could damage reputations.
The court specifically noted that imputing infidelity to a married woman has the potential to irreversibly tarnish her social status and personal dignity.
To ensure judicial restraint in ordering DNA tests, the bench established a structured two-tier evaluative framework. First, the court must exhaustively assess all available evidence to determine whether the presumption of legitimacy can be upheld.
A DNA test should be considered only if the presented evidence is inconclusive. Second, even in instances where evidence remains insufficient, courts must engage in a thorough proportionality analysis to determine whether genetic testing would result in disproportionate harm to the parties involved.
Drawing upon the Supreme Court’s seminal 2017 ruling in KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the bench reaffirmed that any infringement on personal privacy must satisfy three essential legal principles: (i) legality, requiring the existence of a lawful basis; (ii) necessity, demonstrating a legitimate state objective; and (iii) proportionality, ensuring a rational correlation between the means employed and the intended purpose.
The absence of any of these elements renders such intrusion unconstitutional, constituting a violation of privacy and personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Justice Kant further stressed the importance of preserving the child’s dignity and privacy, particularly in cases concerning legitimacy disputes.
“Though in this instance, the child is a major and is voluntarily submitting himself to this test, he is not the only stakeholder bearing personal interest in the results, whatever they may be. It is in this backdrop that the appellant’s right to privacy and dignity has to be considered,” he stated.
The Court reaffirmed that existing legal mechanisms are sufficient for determining legitimacy without necessitating DNA testing. It reiterated that courts must allow parties to present evidence of non-access to challenge the presumption of legitimacy and that only when such evidence is inconclusive should genetic testing be considered.
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding constitutional privacy rights and ensuring that legal procedures are not weaponized to facilitate undue intrusions into private life.
Read More: Minor Girl Found at Navi Mumbai Railway Station; Probe Indicates Rape
