Supreme Court Upholds Privacy, Rejects DNA Test In Paternity Case; Check Details

New Delhi: The Supreme Court ruled that a child’s legitimacy determines paternity, stating that a child born during a valid marriage is presumed to be the legitimate offspring of the parents who had access to each other at the time of conception.

The Supreme Court dismissed the argument that legitimacy and paternity are distinct concepts requiring separate determination, and said that the two are inherently intertwined.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a two-decade-old case involving a 23-year-old man, who claimed his birth was the consequence of his mother’s extramarital affair and a DNA proof of his paternity was sought.

The man claimed to have had numerous operations and dealing with some health problems, and sought to establish his paternity to receive maintenance from his biological father because he and his mother were having financial difficulties paying for the treatment.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court balanced the child’s right to know biological father with the right to privacy and dignity.

Rejecting the plea for DNA test, the top court pointed out that making someone take the test could expose his private life to public observation, which could damage his dignity and reputation.

His appeal was granted by the court, which acknowledged the value of privacy.

“When dealing with the eminent need for a DNA test to prove paternity, this court balances the interests of those involved and must consider whether it is possible to reach the truth without the use of such a test. First and foremost, the courts must, therefore, consider the existing evidence to assess the presumption of legitimacy. If that evidence is insufficient to come to a finding, only then should the court consider ordering a DNA test. Once the insufficiency of evidence is established, the court must consider whether ordering a DNA test is in the best interests of the parties involved and must ensure that it does not cause undue harm to the parties,” Justice Surya Kant said while delivering the judgment, according to Live law.

Justice Kant cited section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, which strongly presumes that a woman’s husband is the father of her child if born during their marriage. This presumption aims to prevent unnecessary scrutiny of a child’s parentage.

Case study

The case involved a woman who admitted to having a child with another man while still married. She gave birth to a daughter in 1991 and a son in 2001. The husband’s name was listed as the boy’s father in the Municipal Corporation of Cochin’s birth register.

Due to marital issues, the couple separated in 2003 and filed for divorce, which the family court granted in 2006. After the divorce, the woman asked the municipal corporation to change the boy’s father’s name to another man, claiming he was the biological father of an affair. However, the corporation said it could only make the change if a court ordered it.

The Kerala courts ordered a DNA test for the man, but he challenged this decision in the Supreme Court. His lawyer, Romy Chacko, argued that forcing the man to take a DNA test would violate Section 112 of the Evidence Act, which assumes the husband is the father unless proven otherwise.