Right To Know Biological Father Prevails Over Right To Privacy; DNA Test Can Be Ordered To Resolve Paternity: Supreme Court

"When dealing with the eminent need for a DNA test to prove paternity, this Court balances the interests of those involved and must consider whether it is possible to reach the truth without the use of such a test, " Supreme Court, in a significant judgment dated May 29, 2026, held that a person’s right to know their biological father and seek closure on their identity outweighs the right to privacy of the alleged father.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that while DNA tests should not be ordered routinely, they are indispensable in exceptional cases where the question of paternity is directly in issue and cannot be resolved through other evidence.

The court noted that the right to privacy is not an absolute right and must be balanced against the interest of justice. The bench emphasized that in cases where a child seeks a declaration of paternity to secure inheritance rights, the balance of interests lies in favor of the child.

The case arose from a civil suit filed by Amar (the respondent), who claimed to be the son of Chaturbhuj Pradhan (the appellant) born out of a consensual relationship with his mother in 1999. While previous maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC had failed to establish the relationship, Amar filed a civil suit upon attaining majority seeking a declaration of paternity and a share in the property. Both the Trial Court and the Chhattisgarh High Court concurrently ordered the appellant to undergo a DNA test, which was challenged before the Supreme Court.

The primary question before the court was whether a person can be compelled to undergo a DNA test to determine paternity in a civil suit. The court was also called upon to determine if findings in summary maintenance proceedings act as res judicata for a subsequent civil suit and how the right to privacy balances against a child's right to identity.

The Evolution of DNA Jurisprudence: From Goutam Kundu to Present Day

The court traced the historical evolution of DNA testing in Indian law, noting the foundational principles laid down in Goutam Kundu v. State of W.B. (1993). In that case, the court had initially held that courts cannot order blood tests as a matter of course and that no one can be compelled to give a sample. However, the bench observed that later decisions like Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (2015) and Aparna Ajinkya Firodia (2024) have refined this stance to permit DNA testing when it is the only way to determine the truth.

DNA Test Permissible When Paternity Is Directly In Issue

The Court observed that the modern approach allows for DNA examination to determine the veracity of allegations that constitute the core grounds of a suit. It noted that while a court should avoid such tests if other evidence is available, DNA profiling is permissible in matters where there is no other mode of proving assertions. The bench highlighted that the legitimacy of a child should not be put to peril unless the test is indispensable to resolve the controversy.

"Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be permissible for a court to direct the holding of a DNA examination to determine the veracity of the allegation(s) which constitute one of the grounds, on which the party concerned would either succeed or lose."

Absence of Section 112 IEA Presumption in Non-Marital Relationships

The bench clarified that the strict requirements for ordering DNA tests often arise in matrimonial disputes to protect the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA). However, in the present case, since the relationship was allegedly consensual and not a valid marriage, the presumption of legitimacy does not apply. This shifted the balance in favor of allowing the scientific test to reach the truth.

Balancing Right to Privacy Against Child's Desire for Closure

Addressing the appellant's contention regarding the right to privacy, the court conducted a balancing exercise. It noted that Amar had grown up seeing his mother assert CP’s paternity while authorities consistently found otherwise due to a lack of evidence. The court held that without a DNA test, Amar might be forever denied the rights he is entitled to as a son, creating a "desire for closure" that outweighs the appellant's privacy interests.

"As far as the right of privacy is concerned, we are balancing, in this case CP’s privacy with Amar’s desire for closure on a question that has loomed large on his life throughout."

Summary Proceedings Under Section 125 CrPC Do Not Bar Civil Suits

The court rejected the appellant's argument that the suit was barred by res judicata because of previous maintenance litigation. It held that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature and do not amount to a "full-dress trial" or a final finding on paternity. Consequently, a child is entitled to seek a formal declaration from a civil court, where the question of paternity is the primary issue.

DNA Test As The Most Reliable Scientific Recourse

The bench concluded that in cases where a defendant consistently denies paternity and no other categorical evidence exists, the court is justified in ordering a scientific test. It noted that the civil suit was filed specifically to resolve this link, making the DNA result "directly in issue." The court found no error in the High Court’s order directing the appellant to provide a sample.

"If no positive answer is ever found out to the question, it is quite possible that Amar would forever be denied the rights he may otherwise be entitled to by virtue of being CP’s son."

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the orders of the Chhattisgarh High Court and the Trial Court. The bench directed the concerned Civil Court to fix a date for the DNA test and proceed with the civil suit based on the results. The court reiterated that the balance of interests clearly favored the respondent's right to establish his biological identity.

Date of Decision: May 29, 2026