SC: DNA Test Cannot Override Child’s Legitimacy Presumption Under Section 112 Evidence Act

Respondent No. 1, Kamar Nisha, married Abdul Latheef in 2001. When her husband sought medical treatment from the appellant, the latter allegedly developed an extramarital relationship with her, resulting in the birth of a child in 2007. After her husband deserted her, she appeared on a TV programme accusing the appellant of cheating and filed an FIR under Sections 417 and 420 IPC and Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act. During the investigation, the police sought a DNA test to determine whether the appellant was the child’s biological father.

The Madras High Court upheld the direction requiring the appellant, the respondent, and the child to provide blood samples for DNA profiling. Challenging this order, the appellant argued before the Supreme Court that the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act stood unrebutted; the child was born within a valid marriage, and the forced test would infringe his and the child’s privacy.

Main Issue: Whether the High Court was justified in directing the appellant to undergo DNA testing to determine the child’s paternity when the marriage between the respondent and her husband subsisted and there was no proof of non-access.

SC Held: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that Section 112 of the Evidence Act creates a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage. This presumption can be displaced only by clear, cogent evidence proving non-access between the spouses during the relevant period of conception. Since no such evidence or even specific pleading of non-access was produced, the presumption remained intact, and the child was legally the offspring of Abdul Latheef.

The Court reiterated that DNA testing cannot be ordered as a matter of course; it must meet the “eminent need” test laid down in Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women and must balance the privacy and dignity of all concerned. It found that compelling the appellant and the now-adult child to submit to DNA profiling would be a grave intrusion into their bodily autonomy, failing the three-part test of legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality under K.S. Puttaswamy.

The Bench further ruled that paternity was only collateral to the criminal allegations of cheating and harassment, which could be investigated without such invasive evidence. The High Court had misconstrued Sections 53 and 53A CrPC, which apply only where a medical examination directly yields evidence of the offense. Thus, the direction for DNA testing was quashed, and the appeal allowed.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below