DNA test prompts Madras High Court to order birth certificates changed to name children’s biological father

The petitioner’s two daughters were born while she was still legally married to the fifth respondent, K. Dasarathan.

Their birth certificates accordingly recorded him as their father.

The petitioner later obtained a divorce and married the fourth respondent, P. Renganathan, whom she claimed was the children’s biological father.

A DNA report, based on samples voluntarily provided by the petitioner, the fourth respondent and the children, identified the fourth respondent as their biological father.

After the authorities did not amend the certificates, the petitioner sought writs directing correction of the recorded father’s name and the related initials.

The fifth respondent did not appear; the Court recorded that notice had been returned marked “left without instructions”.

1. Whether Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 permits correction of a birth-record entry to substitute the recorded father’s name with the biological father’s name, where DNA evidence establishes paternity.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct the correction, notwithstanding the presumption concerning legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 authorises correction of errors in birth records; the Court construed that power to extend to substantive errors, including an incorrect entry of a parent’s name.

Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now pari materia with Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) provides a presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage, subject to its statutory exception.

Relying on Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik, (2014) 2 SCC 576, the Court stated that where reliable scientific evidence conflicts with that presumption, the presumption must yield to proof.

The Court also relied on Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women, (2010) 8 SCC 633, and Narayan Dutt Tiwari v. Rohit Shekhar, (2012) 12 SCC 554, concerning the evidentiary value of DNA testing and the use of scientific evidence in determining paternity.

Article 226 confers discretionary and equitable jurisdiction, which the Court may use to protect a child’s dignity and interests under Article 21.

The Court treated the DNA report as genuine and undisputed, noting that the test had been undertaken voluntarily by the petitioner, the fourth respondent and the children; accordingly, the usual concerns about compelling a person to undergo DNA testing did not arise.

It held that the children’s birth during the petitioner’s subsisting marriage did not prevent recognition of the biological father where scientific evidence established paternity.

The Court construed Section 15 broadly enough to permit correction of the parentage entry and considered that leaving the certificates unchanged would prolong the children’s difficulty in having their paternity legally recognised.

It directed the competent respondent to correct the birth certificates by recording the fourth respondent, P. Renganathan, as the father of both children and to make the corresponding changes to the initials of the children and the petitioner.

Both writ petitions were disposed of, the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, and no order as to costs was made.