Inability To Trace Beneficiaries Cannot Defeat Or Postpone Compensation Disbursal: Supreme Court Directs High Court Suo Motu Proceedings Disability Pension | Mere Manifestation Of Disease During Military Service Without Causal Connection Is Not Sufficient For Entitlement: Supreme Court Prevention Of Corruption Act | Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Without Proof Of Demand Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Appointment Contrary To Statutory Requirements And Advertisement Terms Amounts To Fraud On Public: Supreme Court IT Act | Once Settlement Commission Admits Application Under Section 245C, Assessing Officer Loses Jurisdiction To Reopen Assessment Under Section 148: Supreme Court NDPS Act | Prosecution Must Establish Unbroken Chain Of Custody For Samples, Failure To Comply With Section 52-A Renders FSL Report Inadmissible: Supreme Court Section 180 BNSS | Investigating Officers Must Adopt Transparent Practices; DGP Should Consider Making Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements Mandatory: Allahabad High Court Rowdy Sheet Cannot Be Opened In A Mechanical Manner Based On Mere Pendency Of Two Criminal Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Surname Protection Under Section 35 Trade Marks Act Not Restricted To Natural Persons': Bombay High Court Allows Corporate Body To Use Family Name Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution Must Prove Connectivity Between Accused And Crime, Mere 'Last Seen' Theory Insufficient: Calcutta High Court Section 482 BNSS | Criminal Prosecution Against Company Directors Cannot Be Quashed When Investigation Reveals Active Role Beyond Mere Designation: Delhi High Court Cannot Be Permitted To Patch Up Weak Points: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Belated Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Plea Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Burden To Prove Material Irregularity Or Fraud In Court Auction Sale Lies Upon Judgment Debtor: Kerala High Court Departmental Instructions Not Being Mandatory, Non-Compliance Does Not Vitiate Enquiry If Guilt Is Proved By Other Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court Doctrine Of Res Gestae | Hearsay Evidence Can Be Admissible If Statement Is Spontaneous And Contemporaneous With The Occurrence: Madras High Court Relatives Cannot Be Roped Into Matrimonial Disputes On The Basis Of Omnibus Allegations: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Discharge Victim In Private Complaint Case Entitled To File Appeal Against Acquittal Before Sessions Court U/S 372 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Remand, Entitles Accused To Bail: Orissa High Court Section 18 Limitation Act | Acknowledgement Of Loan In Promissory Note Extends Period Of Limitation For Entire Debt: Delhi High Court Section 138 NI Act | Existence Of Defence Founded On Disputed Facts Cannot Be Ground To Scuttle Cheque Bounce Prosecution At Inception: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Promotion Does Not Exist Under Repealed Rules Following Policy Restructuring: Supreme Court

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

 

Latest Legal News