Calling Family Land "Ancestral" Is Not Enough — Must Trace Four Generations Of Male Lineage To Stop Father From Selling It: Punjab & Haryana HC Marks Of Candidates In Public Exam Not Private Information, Disclosable Under RTI: Allahabad High Court Integrity of a Judge Is Difficult to Prove by Direct Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Adverse ACR Entry Against Judicial Officer When State Reorganisation Is Already Done, Section 103 Of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act Cannot Undo It: Supreme Court Rules Sugarcane Societies Are Not Multi-State Bodies Bihar Cannot Take Over A Century-Old Library By Paying One Rupee As Compensation: Supreme Court Strikes Down 2015 Act Call Records Without Section 65-B Certificate Are Inadmissible, Oral Evidence Of Nodal Officer No Substitute: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Minority Shareholders Cannot Block Capital Reduction By Majority: Supreme Court Upholds Bharti Telecom's Buyout Of 1.09% Individual Investors At Rs.196.80 Per Share Travel Bans On Unvaccinated, No Disclosure Of Deaths Abroad: Supreme Court Finds COVID Vaccine Programme Violated Articles 14, 19 And 21 Bottle Cap Supplier Gets Anticipatory Bail In Spurious Liquor Case: Supreme Court Finds No Raid At His Premises, No Misuse Of Liberty DNA And Chemical Analyst Reports Cannot Be Read In Evidence Without Examining Scientific Experts: Bombay High Court Proof Of Agreement Alone Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Specific Performance - Continuous Readiness And Willingness Is A Condition Precedent: Chhattisgarh High Court Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Replace Proof: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Bank Clerk’s Dismissal in Rs. 38.67 Lakh Pension Account Case Cheque Dishonour Due To ‘Account Blocked’ Cannot Attract Section 138 NI Act When Drawer Had No Control Over Frozen Account: Karnataka High Court Mere Domestic Discord Or Harassment Is Not Abetment Of Suicide: Gujarat High Court Upholds Husband’s Acquittal Silence On Incriminating Circumstance Can Strengthen Prosecution Case: Gauhati High Court On Section 313 CrPC Even In Heinous Offences, Accused Cannot Be Kept In Jail Indefinitely: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail After 7 Years Of Trial Delay Acquittal On Benefit Of Doubt Cannot Rescue Police Officer From Removal: Kerala High Court Upholds Dismissal Despite Criminal Court's Not Guilty Verdict Trial Court Cannot Ignore High Court Directions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Fresh Enquiry And Initiates Disciplinary Action State Cannot Shrug Responsibility For Vaccine Deaths: Supreme Court Directs Centre To Frame No-Fault Compensation Policy For COVID-19 Adverse Events Supreme Court Streamlines Procedural Safeguards For Passive Euthanasia

Forcing to DNA test is violation of violate his personal liberty and right to privacy. – SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


OCTOBER 1, 2021

The appellant seeks a declaration of ownership of property left by the late Trilok Chand Gupta and Sona Devi. He arrayed the couple's three daughters as defendants in the suit and claimed himself to be the son of Trilok Chand Gupta and Sona Devi. In their written statement, the defendants denied that the plaintiff is the son of their parents (Trilok Chand Gupta and Sona Devi), and as such, he is disentitled to any share in their parental property. The defendants also set up an exclusive claim on the property based on the Will dated 16.4.1982 (registered on 25.4.1982) executed by their late mother Sona Devi. The Defendants filed an application seeking direction from the Court to conduct a Deoxyribonucleic Acid Test (DNA) of the plaintiff and either of the defendants, to establish a biological link of the plaintiff to the defendants parents . But the same was dismissed and aggrieved by this order, defendants approached the High Court and the same was allowed. The Appellant approached the Apex court and question which has to be decided, whether in a declaratory suit where ownership over coparcenary property is claimed, the plaintiff, against his wishes, can be subjected to a DNA test and in the absence of consent, a party can be forced to provide a sample for a DNA test. Both replied in the negative. When the plaintiff is unwilling to subject himself to the DNA test, forcing him to undergo one would impinge on his personal liberty and his right to privacy. Appeal allowed. 

ASHOK KUMAR      

VERSUS 

RAJ GUPTA & ORS.

View Judgement

Latest Legal News