Mere Presence at the Scene Is Insufficient to Prove Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Kerala High Court Acquits Two Co-Accused in Murder Case Execution of Will Must Satisfy Legal Mandates; Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Be Ignored: Chhattisgarh High Court Anticipatory Bail Barred Under SC/ST Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Petitions Citing Section 14A Jurisdictional Restrictions Section 143A Imposes a Substantive Obligation and Cannot be Applied Retrospectively: Rajasthan High Court Unregistered Sale Agreements Cannot Be Basis for Specific Performance or Injunction: Madras High Court Upholds First Appellate Court’s Decision” Denial of Subsistence Allowance During Suspension Violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution: Punjab and Haryana High Court Framing of Charges Requires Prima Facie Evidence, Not Mere Suspicion: Kerala High Court Discharges Bank Customer in Fraud Case Voluntary Confessions of Co-Accused Cannot Sustain Prosecution: Karnataka High Court Quashes NDPS Case Against Accused Magistrate Cannot Take Cognizance Under MMDR Act Without Complaint by Authorized Officer: Gujarat High Court Quashes FIR in Illegal Mining Case NDPS | Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception: Himachal Pradesh High Court Delhi High Court Reduces Compensation in Motor Accident Case: Functional Disability Reassessed Public Interest and Commercial Morality Must Guide Stay of Winding-Up Proceedings Under Section 466 of the Companies Act: Bombay High Court Non-Compliance with Section 82 Cr.P.C. Renders Proclamation Proceedings Null and Void: P&H High Court Delhi High Court Declines Mandamus to Speaker for Special Assembly Session to Table CAG Reports Doctors Cannot Be Expected to Investigate Victim's Age in the Absence of Prima Facie Doubt: Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Bombay HC Grants Bail to Drunk Driving Accused; Orders Public Awareness Campaign as a Condition Burden of Proof in Declaratory Suits Lies Squarely on the Plaintiffs: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Church Property Dispute Rajasthan High Court Puts Mass Transfer Orders of Panchayat Officials on Hold Physical Disabilities Cannot Be Ignored Based on Employment Continuity: Kerala High Court Awards ₹9.62 Lakh to Teacher Suffering Permanent Disability Local Commissioner Appointment is Not a Right, But a Discretionary Power of the Court: P&H HC Allegations of Fraud Insufficient to Bar Arbitration in Trademark Dispute: Madras High Court Section 138 N.I. Act | Failure to Prove Legally Enforceable Debt Leads to Acquittal in Cheque Dishonour Case: Karnataka High Court

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

Similar News