Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court

"The Court must give such a direction to carry out the DNA test. Therefore, the Court has rightly exercised its discretionary authority while considering the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC." Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a ruling dated October 1, 2026, held that a court cannot compel a third party to undergo a DNA test for the purpose of establishing paternity in a civil dispute unless the individual consents or such a test is deemed strictly necessary for the just adjudication of the matter.

A bench of Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt observed that the court's power to order such testing must be exercised with caution, balancing the rights of the individuals involved and the protection of their right to privacy.

The petitioners challenged an order passed by the lower appellate court, which had rejected their application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The dispute arose from a property claim where the respondent, claiming to be the daughter of the deceased owner, sought mutation of property in her name. The petitioners sought a DNA test to dispute her parentage, despite failing to have such applications allowed by the trial court during the original proceedings.

The primary question before the court was whether a party in a civil suit has an absolute right to demand a DNA test of a third party to challenge their status as a legal heir. The court was also tasked with determining the extent of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in interfering with the discretionary orders of subordinate courts regarding the production of additional evidence.

DNA Testing And Third-Party Privacy

The court emphasized that the request to subject third parties to a DNA test touches upon fundamental rights, particularly the right to privacy. The bench noted that while Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for the opinion of experts, it does not grant a litigant a blanket right to demand biological testing of others. The court observed that it is not merely about the scientific validity of the test, but whether the court is justified in ordering a third party to submit to such an intrusive procedure without their consent.

No Absolute Right To DNA Testing

The court observed that the petitioners had already failed to secure the DNA test at the trial stage, and their subsequent attempt in the appellate court was a tactical maneuver rather than a procedural necessity. The bench noted that the existing documentary evidence, such as school certificates, carried a presumption of truth under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, as they were over 30 years old.

"The power of interference under this article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence."

High Court's Supervisory Jurisdiction

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, the bench underscored the restricted scope of its interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The court reiterated that its jurisdiction is neither original nor appellate and cannot be invoked merely because another view of the matter is possible. The court stated that interference is reserved only for instances of patent perversity or a gross failure of justice.

Discretion Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC

The court held that the appellate court correctly exercised its discretion in rejecting the application for additional evidence. It observed that the petitioners failed to establish that the evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced earlier despite due diligence. The court concluded that there was no manifest injustice in denying a DNA test, especially when the paternity could be prima facie supported by existing public documents.

The petition was dismissed, upholding the order of the lower appellate court. The ruling reinforces the principle that procedural laws like the CPC are not intended to be used as tools for fishing expeditions, particularly when they infringe upon the privacy rights of non-parties to the litigation.

Date of Decision: 01 October 2026