Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

DNA Tests on Adopted Children Born to Rape Victims Not a Legal Necessity, Infringe Right to Privacy: Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Kerala High Court today ruled that DNA tests on adopted children born to rape victims are not a legal necessity and infringe upon the children’s right to privacy. The judgment emphasized that such tests should not be conducted as part of efforts to establish paternity in rape cases unless absolutely necessary.

This decision came in the wake of multiple lower court orders directing the collection of DNA samples from adopted children to aid in the prosecution of rape cases. The High Court was approached under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the legality of these orders In light of conflicting laws pertaining to the privacy and confidentiality rights of adopted children.

Violation of Privacy: The court held that DNA testing as a means to strengthen prosecution in rape cases infringes on the adopted child’s right to privacy, recognized under various legal provisions including the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the Adoption Regulations, 2022. The judgment noted, “The JJ Act and the Adoption Regulations both underscore the confidentiality and welfare of the adopted child, which are paramount.”

Legal Necessity and Proportionality: The court pointed out that the proof of paternity is not necessary to establish the crime of rape under relevant laws. Justice K. Babu referenced multiple precedents stressing the necessity and proportionality tests in ordering such invasive tests. He noted, “The use of DNA tests must be carefully considered, keeping in mind the potential psychological impact on the child.”

Guidelines Issued: The court issued guidelines limiting DNA tests on adopted children to exceptional cases where such tests are indispensable. The guidelines further instructed that any necessary DNA samples should be collected before the completion of the adoption process, ensuring the privacy of the child is not compromised post-adoption.

Decision of the Court: The court quashed all orders from various courts within Kerala that had previously directed DNA testing of adopted children in the context of rape investigations, deeming such orders unsustainable given the statutory and constitutional protections in place.

Date of Decision: 19th April 2024

MOTU vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

 

Similar News