The Supreme Court ruled that DNA testing cannot be used as a routine investigative tool. It must be ordered only in exceptional cases, ensuring strict protection of individual dignity and privacy, and constitutional safeguards against unwarranted intrusion.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that directing DNA testing cannot become a routine part of investigations and must only be allowed in exceptional circumstances where justice demands such an intrusion.
A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul Pancholi observed that DNA testing is a deep invasion of privacy and bodily autonomy, requiring strict adherence to constitutional safeguards.
The apex court stated that courts must exercise “utmost circumspection” before directing a DNA test, particularly when such an order could jeopardize the sanctity of family relationships or question the legitimacy of children born within wedlock.
“DNA testing cannot be ordered as a matter of course and must be subject to stringent safeguards to protect the dignity of individuals and the legitimacy of children born during the wedlock,”
the bench emphasized.
The judgment warned against “fishing inquiries masquerading as legitimate requests for scientific evidence.”
Calling DNA testing a “grave intrusion upon privacy and personal liberty”, the court held that such an action can only be justified if it passes the threefold constitutional test of:
- Legality,
- Legitimate State aim, and
- Proportionality.
The court cautioned that forced or unwarranted collection of DNA samples could turn legitimate investigative powers into intrusive violations of fundamental rights.
Case Background
The ruling came in response to a plea filed by a Tamil Nadu-based doctor who challenged a Madras High Court order directing him to undergo DNA testing in a criminal case.
The case originated from a complaint by a woman from Pattukottai, alleging that the doctor developed a physical relationship with her while treating her husband, leading to the birth of a child. When the doctor refused to marry her, she approached a television channel, leading to the registration of an FIR under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC (cheating) and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act.
The Madras High Court had ordered a DNA test to establish paternity, which the doctor challenged before the Supreme Court.
Setting aside the Madras High Court’s order, the Supreme Court held that it was based on a “fundamental misapprehension” of both statutory and constitutional principles.
The court noted that the alleged offences under Sections 417 and 420 IPC and the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act did not justify the use of DNA analysis.
Furthermore, it clarified that the High Court wrongly relied on Sections 53 and 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allow medical examinations only when they can directly yield evidence related to the alleged crime.
The bench concluded that compelling DNA testing without a clear necessity turns a lawful investigative tool into an intrusive measure devoid of justification.
“Scientific procedures, however advanced, cannot be employed as instruments of speculation; they must be anchored in demonstrable relevance to the charge and justified by compelling investigative need,”
the court stated.
Case Title:
R. RAJENDRAN VERSUS KAMAR NISHA AND OTHERS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1013 OF 2021
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read Our Reports on DNA
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Right of Privacy