DNA Testing Cannot Be Directed To Satisfy Mere Suspicion Or As A Tool For Roving Enquiry: Supreme Court Protects Right to Privacy

“Scientific advancement must not override legal safeguards. Courts must guard against using DNA tests as fishing expeditions or speculative tools,” declared the Supreme Court in its landmark judgment quashed a High Court order that had directed DNA profiling of the appellant in a case unrelated to paternity.

Reiterating that the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution is sacrosanct and cannot be overridden without compelling state interest, the Court held that in the absence of a direct nexus between the alleged offence and the DNA evidence sought, such intrusive scientific procedures amount to “unjustified, disproportionate, and unconstitutional invasion of personal autonomy.”

“Fishing Inquiries Masquerading As Investigations Cannot Justify Intrusive DNA Testing”

The criminal appeal arose from a direction by the Madras High Court in a writ petition filed by Kamar Nisha, the complainant in a case under Sections 417 and 420 IPC and Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act. She alleged that she had a relationship with Dr. R. Rajendran, resulting in the birth of a child during her marriage with Abdul Latheef. In support of her allegations of cheating and harassment, she sought a DNA test to prove that the appellant was the biological father of the child.

The High Court, agreeing with her, directed the DNA testing of the appellant, the respondent, and the child. The Division Bench upheld that direction. The appellant challenged it before the Supreme Court, which set aside the orders and allowed the appeal.

The apex court observed:

“Courts must remain vigilant against fishing inquiries masquerading as legitimate requests for scientific evidence, ensuring the sanctity of family relationships is not compromised by speculative or exploratory investigations.” [Para 28]

The bench, comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, emphasized that DNA testing must be preceded by a strong prima facie case demonstrating its necessity for the adjudication of the matter at hand. In the absence of such a threshold, it becomes an unwarranted and constitutionally impermissible intrusion.

DNA Testing Cannot Be Ordered Just Because It Is Technologically Feasible

Referring to the foundational ruling in Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal, the Court reiterated that DNA testing should not be ordered as a matter of course and must pass rigorous scrutiny based on relevance, necessity, and constitutional validity:

“The power to direct such tests must be exercised with utmost circumspection and only when the interests of justice imperatively demand such an intrusive procedure.” [Para 28]

“Scientific procedures, however advanced, cannot be employed as instruments of speculation; they must be anchored in demonstrable relevance to the charge and justified by compelling investigative need.” [Para 59]

The Court took strong exception to the High Court’s invocation of Sections 53 and 53A of the CrPC, clarifying that these provisions only apply when medical examination of an accused would directly aid in proving the offence—such as in cases involving sexual assault or physical injuries.

Here, the charges were of cheating and harassment, and paternity was not essential to the proof of the offence.

“Legitimate State Aim and Proportionality Must Precede Intrusion into Privacy”: Court Applies Puttaswamy Doctrine

The bench applied the triple test laid down in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Privacy-9J), stating that privacy intrusions must be tested for legality, necessity (legitimate aim), and proportionality. It held:

“There exists no legitimate aim that necessitates such an intrusive procedure, since the criminal allegations can be investigated and adjudicated on the strength of other evidence, without delving into the question of biological paternity.” [Para 48]

The Court also flagged the lack of any direct evidentiary link between the DNA test and the offences alleged, stating:

“The FIR itself reveals that the gravamen of the allegations bears no nexus to the paternity of the child... Directing DNA testing in such circumstances would thus be wholly extraneous to the scope of the investigation and disproportionate to the object sought to be achieved.” [Para 53]

The direction, therefore, failed the test of proportionality and was an unconstitutional encroachment upon the bodily autonomy of the appellant and the now-major child.

Child’s Autonomy and Dignity Must Also Be Protected; Not a “Material Object” for Forensic Use

The Court acknowledged the ethical and psychological implications of forced DNA testing, particularly when it concerns children, stating that:

“The act of extracting and analysing one’s genetic material intrudes into the innermost sphere of personal identity, autonomy, and privacy. It can have lasting emotional and social ramifications.” [Para 51]

Highlighting that the child had attained majority, the Court observed that neither the child was a party to the proceedings, nor her autonomy had been considered before ordering DNA collection. It called out the mechanical application of forensic procedures by the courts:

“Courts must guard against viewing individuals—especially children—as mere objects for evidentiary use in criminal trials. The best interests of the child must be a paramount consideration.” [Para 52]

DNA Test Must Be Justified by Evidentiary Necessity, Not Suspicion

The judgment is a firm caution against the routine use of DNA testing in criminal and civil proceedings where such evidence is not essential to determine guilt or liability. It affirms the inviolability of the right to privacy and reasserts the principle that legal safeguards must evolve alongside scientific advancements, not be overridden by them.

“Unless there is demonstrable relevance of the DNA test to the offence charged, courts must refrain from directing such an invasive procedure,” concluded the bench.

Date of Decision: 10 November 2025