The Karnataka High Court ruled that DNA tests can’t be ordered on mere demand, stressing strict legal justification to protect privacy, dignity, legitimacy, and fundamental rights.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has set aside a trial court order that had permitted a DNA test in a partition dispute. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, delivering the judgment, emphasized that such directions must be issued strictly in accordance with law and only when necessary, keeping in mind the constitutional right to privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a partition suit in Channarayapatna, Hassan district, where the plaintiffs sought a DNA test on the child of defendants 1 and 3, a married couple. Their claim was based on the assertion that the husband had undergone a vasectomy in 1979, yet the couple had a child in 1986. Despite objections, the civil court had allowed the DNA test in April 2025.
High Court’s Observations
The High Court found the trial court’s decision unsustainable, stating that it had “blissfully ignored” the legal presumption that a child born in lawful wedlock is legitimate. The court criticised the lower court for treating the DNA test order “as a frolicsome act” without appreciating the sensitivity of such directions.
Justice Nagaprasanna reiterated the Supreme Court’s caution that compelling DNA tests without compelling necessity could imperil:
- The sanctity of marriage
- The legitimacy of children
- Fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21
The judgment drew heavily from Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is rooted in the maxim pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant, “the father is he whom the marriage indicates.” This provision establishes that a child born during lawful wedlock carries a presumption of legitimacy.
The High Court clarified that a DNA test can be ordered only if non-access at the time of conception is both pleaded and proved. Without such a foundation, ordering a DNA test would be an infringement on privacy and dignity.
As observed in Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025):
“There exists a strong presumption that the husband is the father of the child borne by his wife during the subsistence of their marriage. … Non-access means the impossibility, not merely inability, of the spouses to have marital relations with each other.”
The High Court’s reasoning on Supreme Court precedents:
- Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993) – “No person can be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis against his/her will and no adverse inference can be drawn against him/her for this refusal.”
- Banarsi Dass v. Teeku Dutta (2005) – Reaffirmed that presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 is strong and can only be rebutted by clear proof of non-access.
- Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women (2010) – “DNA test in a matter relating to paternity of a child should not be directed by the court as a matter of course or in a routine manner … the test of ‘eminent need’ must be satisfied.”
- Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2024) – “Even if a genuine DNA test reveals that the child was not born to the husband, the conclusiveness in law would remain irrebuttable … legitimacy of the child would still be conclusive in law.”
- Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025) – “Access merely refers to the possibility of an opportunity for marital relations. Non-access means the impossibility, not merely inability.”
- Ashok Kumar v. Raj Gupta (2022) – “Forcing him to undergo a DNA test would impinge on his personal liberty and his right to privacy … the protection of the right to privacy of the plaintiff should get precedence.”
Case Title:
Sri Hareesh @ Harishkumar vs Sri A S Umesh
WP 20342/2025
Read Order:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on DNA
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Right of Privacy
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES