DNA | Child’s Right To Identity & Closure Outweighs Putative Father’s Right To Privacy In Paternity Disputes: Supreme Court

"As far as the right of privacy is concerned, we are balancing, in this case CP’s privacy with Amar’s desire for closure on a question that has loomed large on his life throughout. He has seen, right from childhood, his mother assert that CP is the father but the authorities, consistently found otherwise," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated May 29, 2026, held that a putative father’s right to privacy is not absolute and must be balanced against a child’s legitimate interest in knowing their biological paternity.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that when the question of paternity is directly in issue and no other evidence provides a categorical answer, the "balance of interests" tips in favour of the child’s right to identity and legal entitlements.

The appellant, Chaturbhuj Pradhan, challenged concurrent orders from a Civil Court and the Chhattisgarh High Court directing him to undergo a DNA test. The first respondent, Amar, filed a civil suit upon attaining majority, seeking a declaration that he is the appellant’s son born out of a consensual relationship and is thus entitled to a share in the property. The appellant denied the relationship, relying on his previous acquittal in a criminal case under Section 376 IPC filed by the mother.

The primary question before the court was whether a person can be compelled to provide a DNA sample when their right to privacy is asserted. The court also examined whether previous summary proceedings under Section 125 CrPC regarding maintenance would operate as res judicata in a subsequent civil suit for declaration of paternity. Finally, the bench had to determine the "eminent need" for scientific evidence in the absence of other proof.

DNA Test Not To Be Ordered Routinely Or For Roving Inquiries

The Court began by reiterating the foundational principles laid down in Goutam Kundu v. State of W.B., noting that courts in India cannot order blood tests as a matter of course. It emphasized that such applications should not be entertained for "roving inquiries" and that no one can be physically compelled to give a sample. However, the bench noted that the legal landscape has evolved to allow DNA tests where they are indispensable for resolving a controversy.

Balancing The Right To Privacy Against The Right To Identity

Addressing the core conflict between the appellant's privacy and the respondent's identity, the Court noted that it must undertake an exercise to "balance the interests" of the parties. It observed that while the appellant seeks to protect his privacy, the respondent seeks closure on a fundamental question that has "loomed large on his life throughout." The bench held that if a positive answer is never found, the respondent could be forever denied rights he is otherwise entitled to as a son.

"The right of privacy in as much as it is available to CP is not an absolute right."

Eminent Need For DNA Test When Paternity Is Directly In Issue

Relying on the precedent in Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, the Court explained that the "eminent need" for a DNA test must be assessed. It held that there are two primary blockades to ordering such a test: the insufficiency of existing evidence and a positive finding regarding the balance of interests. In this case, the bench found that since the appellant consistently denied paternity and no other evidence could provide a categorical answer, the scientific process was necessary.

"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."

Presumption Of Legitimacy Under Section 112 Evidence Act

The Court distinguished the present case from matrimonial disputes where Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA) creates a strong presumption of legitimacy for children born during a valid marriage. It noted that the principles in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia require "sufficient prima facie material" to dislodge such a presumption. However, since the present case involved an alleged relationship outside of marriage, the strict requirements of Section 112 IEA were not the primary hurdle.

Summary Proceedings Under Section 125 CrPC Not Res Judicata

The bench rejected the appellant’s contention that the suit was barred by res judicata due to previous maintenance litigations. It observed that findings in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature and do not amount to a final determination of paternity. Since those earlier findings were not the result of a "full-dress trial," the civil suit filed by Amar was maintainable to determine the question of paternity which is "directly in issue."

"If no positive answer is ever found out to the question, it is quite possible that Amar would forever be denied the rights he may otherwise be entitled to by virtue of being CP’s son."

Conclusion

The Supreme Court concluded that the balance of interests lies firmly in favour of the respondent. Finding no error in the High Court's judgment, the bench dismissed the appeal. It directed the concerned Civil Court to fix a date for the DNA test and proceed with the pending civil suit based on the scientific results.

Date of Decision: May 29, 2026