DNA Testing in Paternity Disputes: Balancing Privacy, Identity and Inheritance Rights

Context

The Supreme Court recently upheld an order directing a DNA test in a paternity dispute involving claims of biological parentage and inheritance. The case required balancing the right to privacy with the right to establish identity and legal entitlement.

Legal Framework

Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

1. A child born during a valid marriage, or within 280 days of its dissolution, is presumed to be the legitimate child of the husband.
2. This presumption can be rebutted only by proving non-access between the spouses during the period of conception.
3. The provision seeks to protect the legitimacy, dignity, and welfare of the child.

Judicial Approach to DNA Testing

1. There is no specific statutory provision authorising courts to order DNA tests in paternity disputes.
2. The legal framework has evolved through judicial precedents.
3. Courts view DNA testing as a measure of last resort and permit it only when necessary to serve the interests of justice.

Key Judicial Developments

1. Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993): DNA tests should not be ordered routinely; courts must consider the social consequences for the child and mother.
2. Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (2014): DNA testing may be permitted when necessary for resolving a dispute.
3. Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023): DNA testing should be ordered only when alternative evidence is inadequate; children’s privacy rights were also recognised.
4. Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025): Introduced the “balance of interests” approach between privacy concerns and the right to establish biological parentage.
5. Nikhat Parveen v. Rafique (2026): Reiterated that DNA tests should be ordered only in exceptional circumstances.

Conditions for Ordering a DNA Test

A DNA test may be directed when:

1. Paternity is the central issue in the dispute.
2. No adequate alternative evidence is available.
3. The interests of justice outweigh concerns relating to privacy and dignity.

Constitutional and Ethical Issues

1. Privacy versus Identity Rights: The judgment balances the right to privacy under Article 21 with an individual’s right to establish biological identity and legal status.
2. Inheritance and Access to Justice: Determination of parentage may be essential for claiming inheritance, succession, and other legal rights.
3. Judicial Role in Legal Gaps: In the absence of specific legislation, courts have developed principles governing DNA testing through judicial interpretation.
4. Child Rights and Dignity: The case highlights the need to balance the protection of legitimacy with an individual’s interest in knowing their biological origins.

Significance

1. Clarifies the legal principles governing DNA testing in paternity disputes.
2. Reinforces the balancing of competing constitutional rights.
3. Strengthens identity and inheritance rights.
4. Promotes the use of scientific and forensic evidence in family law disputes.
5. Highlights the need for a legislative framework governing genetic evidence.

Conclusion

The judgment underscores that neither privacy nor identity rights are absolute. By permitting DNA testing only in exceptional circumstances, the Court seeks to balance dignity, access to justice, and the pursuit of truth while upholding constitutional values.