DNA test to determine paternity may be ordered when the issue is central and evidence is otherwise insufficient.

In brief

The question

1. Whether a court can compel an individual to undergo a DNA test to determine paternity when other evidence is insufficient to resolve the dispute

The court held

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the balance of interests lies in favor of the child (Amar)

It also directed

The Court affirmed the High Court’s judgment, ruling that a DNA test is indispensable when paternity is the core issue and other evidence is insufficient

It directed the Civil Court to fix a date for the DNA test and proceed with the suit based on the results

01Facts

The first respondent, Amar Pradhan, filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of paternity and a 1/3rd share in the property of the appellant, Chaturbhuj Pradhan (CP), alleging he was born out of a consensual relationship between CP and the second respondent in 1999

pp. 2-3

CP denied paternity, citing his acquittal in a prior rape case filed by the mother and previous maintenance litigations where established relations were not proven

p. 2

The Trial Court and the High Court of Chhattisgarh concurrently ordered CP to undergo a DNA test to determine paternity

pp. 2-3

CP challenged these orders, contending he cannot be compelled to provide a sample and that the suit is barred by res judicata

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether a court can compel an individual to undergo a DNA test to determine paternity when other evidence is insufficient to resolve the dispute

p. 7 / para. 6

ii.2. Whether the findings in previous summary maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC operate as res judicata on a subsequent civil suit for declaration of paternity

p. 3, 8 / para. 4, 6.3

iii.3. Whether the right to privacy of the alleged father outweighs the child’s interest in knowing their biological parentage

p. 6, 8 / para. 5.4, 6.3

03Law Applied

The Court relied on Goutam Kundu v. State of W.B., establishing that while DNA tests should not be ordered as a matter of course, they are permissible if a strong prima facie case exists

p. 4

It applied Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, which held that DNA profiling should be directed only when the controversy cannot be resolved through other evidence and is indispensable to the issue

pp. 5-6

per Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, the court must perform a "balance of interests" test, weighing the right to privacy against the "eminent need" of the child to know their biological father

pp. 6-7

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 125

04Reasoning

The Court observed that the question of paternity is "directly in issue" in the civil suit, unlike previous summary proceedings which did not involve a full-dress trial

p. 8

It reasoned that since CP consistently denied the relationship and there was no evidence of the mother having an intimate relationship with anyone else, a DNA test was the only way to reach the truth

p. 8

Regarding res judicata, the Court held that prior summary findings in maintenance cases do not bar a formal civil declaration

p. 8

In balancing interests, the Court found the child’s "desire for closure" and the potential denial of inheritance rights outweighed CP’s right to privacy, especially since the social stigma of "illegitimacy" had loomed over the child since birth

p. 8

05Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the balance of interests lies in favor of the child (Amar)

p. 9

The Court affirmed the High Court’s judgment, ruling that a DNA test is indispensable when paternity is the core issue and other evidence is insufficient

p. 8

It directed the Civil Court to fix a date for the DNA test and proceed with the suit based on the results

p. 9

LawLens.Supreme Court

Original Court PDF