Supreme Court Rules: DNA Test Cannot Be Ordered Without Nexus to Offence
Court says routine DNA testing violates privacy and risks illegitimising children
Judgment reaffirms presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of Evidence Act
By Our Legal Reporter
New Delhi: November 11, 2025:
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has held that courts must not order DNA tests casually, especially when the question of paternity has no nexus with the offence under trial. The ruling came in the case of Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha & Others, where the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) had directed a DNA test in a paternity dispute.
Also Read: Bombay High Court Stays FIR Against Flipkart in Shemaroo Copyright Dispute
Also Read: Supreme Court Rules: DNA Test Cannot Be Ordered Without Nexus to Offence
The apex court bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi set aside the High Court’s order, stressing that DNA profiling cannot be used for “fishing inquiries” and must only be resorted to when indispensable for justice.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose when a doctor was compelled by the Madras High Court to undergo a DNA test in connection with a paternity claim. The petitioner challenged this order before the Supreme Court, arguing that the DNA test was irrelevant to the offence in question and violated his right to privacy.
The High Court had reasoned that the DNA test would help establish truth in the dispute. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the question of paternity had no nexus with the criminal offence under trial and therefore such a direction was unwarranted.
Also Read: Gujarat High Court Rules VAT on Hospital Supplies Unconstitutional
Also Read: Supreme Court Rules: Arbitrators Cannot Rewrite Contracts – IRCTC Wins Against Caterers
Supreme Court’s Observations
- Privacy Concerns: Ordering DNA tests without necessity intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and dignity.
- Presumption of Legitimacy: Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for children born during a valid marriage. This presumption cannot be displaced by mere suspicion or allegations.
- Risk of Illegitimising Children: Casual DNA testing can stigmatize children born within wedlock by questioning their legitimacy.
- Judicial Discipline: Courts must balance the interests of justice with constitutional rights and avoid unnecessary intrusion into private lives.
The bench emphasized that DNA tests should only be ordered when indispensable for resolving the offence under trial.
Why the Judgment Matters
Also Read: Supreme Court Rules: No Right to Job for Landowners Under Land Acquisition Act
- Protects Privacy: It reinforces the constitutional right to privacy, preventing misuse of scientific tools.
- Safeguards Children: It protects children from being illegitimised due to unnecessary DNA testing.
- Limits Judicial Overreach: The judgment sets boundaries on when courts can order DNA tests.
- Strengthens Evidence Law: It reaffirms the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.
Impact on Stakeholders
- Individuals: Citizens are protected from being forced into DNA tests without legal necessity.
- Children: The ruling safeguards their dignity and legitimacy.
- Courts: Judges are reminded to exercise caution and restraint when ordering scientific tests.
- Legal System: The judgment strengthens the balance between truth-seeking and constitutional rights.
Expert Opinions
- The judgment rightly emphasizes that DNA tests cannot be ordered as routine measures.
- It aligns with global standards where privacy and dignity are prioritized in paternity disputes.
- It prevents misuse of scientific evidence for harassment or fishing inquiries.
Also Read: ITAT Jaipur Rules: Middleman Not Liable for Tax on Forfeited Property Advance
Also Read: Kerala High Court Halts New Renewable Energy Rules for One Month
Human rights activists also noted that the ruling protects vulnerable children from stigma and ensures that courts respect family integrity.
Lessons for Judiciary and Policymakers
- Exercise Restraint: Courts must order DNA tests only when indispensable for justice.
- Respect Privacy: Judicial directions must balance truth-seeking with constitutional rights.
- Protect Children: Policies should safeguard children from stigma arising from unnecessary DNA inquiries.
- Strengthen Evidence Law: Legislators may consider clearer guidelines on when DNA tests can be ordered.
Broader Implications
Also Read: Supreme Court Clarifies: Nullity Decree Can Be Challenged Anytime, Even During Execution
Also Read: Supreme Court Rules: Transfer of Property Title Not Liable for Service Tax
The case reflects a larger principle in Indian law: scientific tools must be used responsibly and only when necessary. While DNA profiling is a powerful tool, its misuse can harm individuals and families.
For India’s justice system, the ruling is a reminder that truth-seeking must not come at the cost of privacy and dignity. For citizens, it is reassurance that courts will protect their rights against unnecessary intrusion.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling that DNA tests cannot be ordered when paternity has no nexus with the offence under trial is a landmark decision that protects privacy, dignity, and family integrity. By reaffirming the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, the Court has strengthened constitutional values and judicial discipline.
This judgment will serve as a guiding precedent for future cases, ensuring that scientific tools are used responsibly and only when indispensable for justice.
🔑 Keywords for Faster Searches (Google + ChatGPT)
- Supreme Court DNA test ruling India
- Paternity dispute DNA test Supreme Court
- Section 112 Evidence Act legitimacy India
- Supreme Court privacy DNA profiling judgment
- Rajendran v Kamar Nisha case Supreme Court
- DNA test unwarranted offence nexus India
- Supreme Court protects children legitimacy DNA test
- Privacy rights DNA test Supreme Court India
- Supreme Court ruling DNA test paternity dispute
- Indian Evidence Act DNA test Supreme Court
Also Read: ITAT Ahmedabad Rules in Favor of Woman: Tax Notice on ₹51 Lakh Property Purchase Quashed
Also Read: Case Study: How an Indian Startup Founder Incorporated in Delaware