In a stern reaffirmation of privacy and dignity within family life, the Supreme Court has ruled that DNA testing cannot be ordered merely out of suspicion or curiosity—especially when paternity has no direct link to the alleged offence. The bench emphasised that such directions, issued without pressing necessity, risk violating fundamental privacy rights and undermining the presumption of legitimacy attached to children born within marriage.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi observed that Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act enshrines a “legislative policy of profound significance,” shielding children from casual allegations that could strip them of social and legal legitimacy. The Court noted that this presumption of legitimacy stands as “conclusive proof” unless proven otherwise with unequivocal evidence showing that the husband and wife had no access to each other during the time of conception.
The case stemmed from a complaint in Tamil Nadu, where a woman claimed her child, born in 2007, was fathered by a doctor with whom she allegedly had an affair while still married. Following her public accusation, police registered a case for cheating and harassment, later seeking DNA testing of all three parties. When the doctor refused, the Madurai Bench of the High Court compelled him to undergo the test—a decision now overturned by the Supreme Court.
The apex court stressed that DNA testing cannot become a “fishing expedition” for truth where the law already provides presumptions to protect family sanctity. Referring to its earlier ruling in Ivan Rathinam vs. Milan Joseph (2025), the Court reiterated a two-step safeguard before ordering such tests: there must be both an insufficiency of existing evidence and a clear justification that the need for truth outweighs privacy concerns.
In this case, neither condition was met. The child’s birth and school records listed the complainant’s husband as the father, and there was no credible proof that he lacked access to his wife at the relevant time.
“Ordering DNA profiling here would be a grave intrusion into the privacy and dignity of both the appellant and the child,” the Court held, underscoring that Article 21 of the Constitution protects individuals from such invasive actions.
The judgment stands as a reminder that science cannot override law or humanity—especially when its misuse risks turning truth-seeking into an assault on personal dignity and the legitimacy of family bonds.