Can privacy trump parentage? Why Supreme Court upheld DNA test in paternity case

📌 Summary:

• The Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh dismissed a challenge to orders directing a man (CP) to undergo a DNA test in a civil suit filed by a person claiming to be his biological son
• Court balanced CP's right to privacy against the alleged son's "desire for closure on a question that has loomed large on his life throughout" — privacy did not prevail in this case
• Three-fold test reiterated for ordering DNA tests: (1) is paternity "directly in issue"? (2) is there "any other evidence-on-record" capable of substituting? (3) is the order "in the best interest of the parties and/or justice"?
• Why DNA was ordered here: father denied paternity consistently for over 20 years (since 1999); no other evidence available; without the test, alleged son "would forever be denied the rights he may otherwise be entitled to"
• Statutory backdrop — Section 112, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 presumes a child born during a valid marriage (or within 280 days of dissolution) is the legitimate child of the husband — rebuttable only by proof of "non-access"
• No express statutory power for ordering DNA tests; jurisprudence emerges case-by-case
• Key precedents: (a) Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993) — DNA test "cannot be ordered as a matter of course"; no roving inquiry; no one can be compelled to give a blood sample (b) Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (2014) — DNA permissible where necessary, but legitimacy of child not to be put at peril (c) Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023) — children's right not to have legitimacy questioned frivolously is an attribute of right to privacy (d) Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025) — introduced "balance of interests" test weighing stigma of illegitimacy against child's right to know biological father (e) Nikhat Parveen v. Rafique (April 2026) — courts must show "well-placed hesitation" before ordering DNA tests

🎯 UPSC Relevance: GS2 — Judicial interpretation; evidentiary law; right to privacy (Puttaswamy framework); child rights under Article 21.

📝 Prelims Facts:

• Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court
• Statute invoked: Section 112, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — presumption of legitimacy
• 280 days: statutory window post-marriage-dissolution for presumption of legitimacy
• Right to privacy: a fundamental right under Article 21 — Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
• Three-fold test for DNA test order: paternity in issue; no substitute evidence; in interest of justice

🔑 Key Term: Section 112, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — a conclusive presumption that a child born during a valid marriage (or within 280 days of its dissolution) is the legitimate child of the husband, rebuttable only by proof of non-access of the parties.