DNA Tests  Can't be ordered in routine - Supreme Court

In order to support the mother of the children's allegation that she had been "forced to reside and develop a physical relationship" with her brother-in-law, the Supreme Court recently overturned a High Court ruling enabling DNA testing to establish the paternity of two children. This appeal was a result of a dowry harassment case in which the plaintiff had filed a first information report under Sections 498A, 323, and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against her husband and his brother. The Division Bench found that the trial court had "mechanically" granted the complainant's motion after granting the accused's appeal. The trial court had instructed the appellants and the children to "provide blood samples to a particular hospital for seeking an expert opinion on DNA fingerprint test" via this order, which ultimately came under the scrutiny of the apex court. The Supreme Court's bench, which was made up of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath, concluded as follows: "A legal requirement that cannot be mandated as a matter of course to be carried out just because it is legal, especially if doing so will violate a person's physical autonomy. The impact would extend beyond the issue of whether testimonial coercion would come from such an order and would also include the right to privacy. Such a directive would go against the people undergoing the tests' right to privacy and could be harmful to the two children, whose futures were also sought to be included in the Trial Court's directive. As a result, we accept the appeal and nullify the High Court's decision."

The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court has been used prior to the appeal proceeding to the highest court. The High Court upheld the contested decision, ruling that the DNA test was legal and did not constitute testimonial coercion under Sections 53, 53A, and 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Two factors led the Supreme Court to take a different stance:

First, neither the children whose blood samples were necessary to be drawn were required to be examined in the complaint or made parties to the case. The Court stated that if these instructions were followed, they may "expose them to inheritance related complication" and cast question on "their legitimacy of being borne to legally wedded parents." Additionally, it was recognised that the Evidence Act of 1872's Section 112 provided defence against claims of this sort.

Second, the proceedings did not raise any issues regarding the children's paternity. The Court noted that the paternity of the two children was solely incidental to the claims on which the criminal case was otherwise based, and that the core issue was whether the offences under the aforementioned sections had been committed.

The trial court and the revisional court, according to the Court, proceeded "as if the children were material things that might be submitted for forensic study," utterly ignoring these factors. The Coordinate Bench of the Supreme Court supported the "sparing use" of the DNA fingerprint test in Ashok Kumar v. Raj Gupta & Ors. [(2022) 1 SCC 20], which the Court heavily referenced in reaching its conclusion.

Inayath Ali & Anr. vs State of Telengana & Anr.