- The Supreme Court overruled the decision of a High Court that allowed DNA testing to determine the paternity of two children to verify a claim made by the mother where she stated that she was forced to cohabit and have a physical relationship with her brother-in-law.
- The appeal arose from a dowry harassment case, where an FIR was filed against the husband and his brother under Sections 498 A, 323, and 354 OF IPC.
- The Division Bench allowed the appeal of the accused and held that the Trial Court had merely accepted the complainant’s application “mechanically.”
- The order passed by the trial court that is under the scrutiny of the Supreme Court stated that the appellants and children to give blood samples to a specified hospital to procure expert opinion on DNA fingerprint tests.
- The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath held that merely because something is permissible under the law does not necessarily mean that it can be directed to be performed particularly when a direction to that effect would be invasive to the physical autonomy of a person.
- The consequence of such shall encompass the right to privacy as well as the question of the order leading to testimonial compulsion.
- When subjected to such tests, this direction could violate the individual’s privacy rights and could be prejudicial to the children’s future who were within the ambit of the Trial Court.
- Considering the above reasons, the apex court allowed the appeal after setting aside the judgment of the High court.
- The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court was invoked before the appeal was made to the Supreme Court.
- The High Court upheld the impugned order that the DNA test was permitted under Sections 53, 53 A, and 54 of CPC and would not be deemed to amount to testimonial compulsion.
- The Supreme Court adjudged the case on two crucial and preliminary factors – the children whose blood samples were directed to be taken were not parties to the proceeding and the paternity of the children was not in question in the proceedings.
- The court augmented that the children whose blood samples were directed to be taken were not parties to the case and neither was their status subject to examination in the complaint.
- This raised their legitimacy of being born to legally wedded parents and if the directions were to be carried out, it could expose them to inheritance-related complications. It is also to be noted that Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act acts as a protective shield against such allegations.
- The paternity of the children was not the essential matter of question in the proceedings.
- The substance matter of the proceeding was with regards to the offences alleged under IPC and the paternity of the children was only collateral to the basis of the allegations of the criminal case.
- The Supreme Court observed that the imperative factors were ignored by the Trial Court and the revisional court who treated the children to be material objects that could be sent for forensic analysis.
- Citing the case of Ashok Kumar Vs Raj Gupta and others, the apex court relied on the judgment delivered by the Coordinate Bench of the Top Court who endorsed a “sparing use” of the DNA fingerprint test.
"Loved reading this piece by Arundhathi?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
