Forceful DNA Testing Is Grave Intrusion on Privacy, Cannot Be Ordered Without “Eminent Need”: SC

The Supreme Court recently observed that no individual can be compelled to undergo DNA testing, holding that such a direction would amount to a grave intrusion into privacy and bodily autonomy protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi, setting aside a Madras High Court order directing a doctor accused of cheating to undergo DNA testing to establish the paternity of a woman’s child, observed, 

“Forcefully subjecting an individual to DNA testing constitutes a grave intrusion upon privacy and personal liberty. Such an encroachment can be justified only if it satisfies the threefold test of legality, legitimate State aim, and proportionality.”

Relying on the constitutional principles laid down in K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, the court said any invasion of privacy must meet three requirements, which are: it must be sanctioned by law, serve a legitimate state purpose, and be proportionate to that purpose.

Since the criminal allegations of cheating and harassment in this case could be investigated without establishing paternity, the bench found no legitimate reason to compel the appellant to give his DNA sample.

Dr. R. Rajendran was accused by a woman of cheating and harassment after she claimed to have had an extramarital relationship with him, resulting in the birth of a child in 2007. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had in 2017 directed Rajendran, the woman, and the child to provide blood samples for DNA profiling to aid investigation into the FIR registered under Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act.

Rajendran challenged the order, arguing that DNA testing could not be ordered for “roving and fishing” inquiries, and that Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act conclusively presumes a child born during the subsistence of marriage to be legitimate unless non-access between spouses is proved.

The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act remains unrebutted unless there is “strong, cogent and unambiguous evidence” that the husband had no access to his wife during the relevant period. It found no such evidence in this case and noted that all official records including the child’s birth and school certificates, named the woman’s husband, Abdul Latheef, as the father.

The bench reiterated that the law “favours legitimacy and frowns upon illegitimacy,” and that Section 112 “stands as a bulwark against the casual illegitimization of children on the strength of unsubstantiated allegations or mere suspicion".

On the issue of consent, court clarified that one party’s willingness to undergo testing cannot override another person’s right to refuse. “Respondent No.1’s willingness to waive her own privacy does not extend to waiving the privacy of others. The appellant and the child, who has now attained majority, possess independent and equally inviolable rights to privacy and dignity,” it said.

Rejecting the argument that adverse inference could be drawn from Rajendran’s refusal to provide a DNA sample, court said such inference cannot arise unless the statutory presumption of legitimacy is first displaced.

The bench also noted that the offences alleged i.e. cheating and harassment, did not warrant the use of DNA analysis. Citing its earlier decision in Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993), it reaffirmed that “no one can be compelled to give a sample of blood for analysis” and that courts must exercise extreme caution before ordering DNA tests, ensuring they are not used for speculative or exploratory investigations.

Concluding that the High Court had misapplied both the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Evidence Act, the Supreme Court set aside the 2017 order, observing that scientific procedures, however advanced, “cannot be employed as instruments of speculation” and must always be justified by demonstrable relevance and compelling investigative need.

The appeal was accordingly allowed.

Case Title: R Rajendran Vs Kamar Nisha

Judgment Date: November 10, 2025

Bench: Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi