Supreme Court Upholds DNA Test in Paternity Suit, Cites Need for Truth

The Supreme Court has held that when a court is faced with the question of whether to order a DNA test, the primary consideration is whether the result of the test is directly in issue, whether any other evidence on record can provide the same answer, and whether directing such a test would serve the interests of the parties and justice.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh upheld the concurrent orders of a trial court in Basna and the Chhattisgarh High Court directing a DNA test of respondent Amar Pradhan to determine whether appellant Chaturbhuj Pradhan is his biological father.

Applying the "balance of interests" and "eminent need" tests laid down in earlier judgments, Court held that paternity is directly in issue in the civil suit filed by Amar seeking a declaration of his status and a share in the appellant's property. It further noted that there was no other evidence on record capable of conclusively answering the question of paternity.

Why did the Supreme Court uphold the DNA test order?

Amar claimed that he was born on September 10, 1999, as a result of a consensual relationship between his mother and the appellant in January 1999. Chaturbhuj denied the claim and relied on his acquittal in a rape case registered by Amar's mother under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding to Section 64 of the BNS).

The dispute between the parties has a long history. Between 2003 and 2010, several rounds of litigation took place concerning maintenance. Subsequently, Amar filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that he is the appellant's son and is therefore entitled to a one-third share in his property.

The trial court allowed the application seeking a DNA test. The high court later affirmed the order, observing that no other form of evidence would be sufficient to clearly establish Amar's paternity.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that he could not be compelled to provide a DNA sample and that there was no eminent need for such a test. He also contended that no adverse inference could be drawn against him under Section 114(h) of the Indian Evidence Act at this stage.

Was Amar's suit barred by res judicata?

The appellant also argued that Amar's suit was barred by the principle of res judicata because issues concerning paternity had already arisen in earlier maintenance proceedings.

Rejecting this contention, the respondent submitted that the previous proceedings under Section 125 CrPC (corresponding to Section 144 of the BNSS ) were initiated by his mother and were summary in nature. Therefore, they could not be treated as a final adjudication on the issue of paternity.

The Supreme Court agreed and held that the plea of res judicata was not applicable in the present case.

How did the court balance privacy rights against the need for a DNA test?

Amar argued that because the appellant had consistently denied paternity, there was no other effective way to determine the truth. He further submitted that the appellant's right to privacy was not absolute and had to be weighed against his right to establish his identity and claim any legal rights flowing from it.

Court found merit in this argument. It noted that the appellant had continuously denied being Amar's father and that there was no other evidence capable of providing a definitive answer. It also observed that it was nobody's case that Amar's mother had been involved in an intimate relationship with any other person.

Addressing the privacy concern, the Bench said that the appellant's privacy rights had to be balanced against Amar's lifelong quest for closure regarding his parentage.

"As far as the right of privacy is concerned, we are balancing, in this case the appellant's privacy with the respondent's desire for closure on a question that has loomed large on his life throughout. He has seen, right from childhood, his mother assert that the appellant is the father but the authorities, consistently found otherwise. If no positive answer is ever found out to the question, it is quite possible that Amar would forever be denied the rights he may otherwise be entitled to by virtue of being the appellant's son," the Bench observed.

Holding that the balance of interests clearly favoured Amar, the Supreme Court found no error in the high court's judgment and dismissed the appeal.

"Let the matter be taken up by the concerned civil court for fixing a date to conduct a DNA test and proceed further in the civil suit pending before it as per the result received subsequently," Court directed.

Case Title: Chaturbhuj Pradhan Vs Amar Pradhan

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh

Date of Judgment: May 29, 2026