Supreme Court Sets Aside Forced DNA Test Order—Section 112 Evidence Act Protects Child’s Legitimacy Absent Proof of Non-Access

Case Name: R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha & Ors.
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1013 of 2021; 2025 INSC 1304
Date of Judgment/Order: 10 November 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi

Held: The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in directing DNA profiling of the appellant without first requiring respondent No. 1 to rebut the conclusive presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. Since the child was born during the subsistence of a valid marriage and no plea or proof of non-access between the spouses was presented, the statutory presumption remained intact. The Court ruled that DNA testing cannot be ordered as a matter of course, cannot be used for fishing or roving enquiries, and cannot be invoked to undermine a child’s legitimacy or violate privacy and bodily autonomy. It also clarified that Sections 53 and 53A CrPC apply only when medical examination has a direct nexus with the offence under investigation—which was absent in this case.

Summary: Respondent No. 1, married to Abdul Latheef, alleged that the appellant, a doctor who treated her husband, had developed a relationship with her leading to the birth of a child in 2007. Following a quarrel in 2014, she appeared on a television programme and lodged an FIR alleging cheating and harassment under Sections 417, 420 IPC and the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act. During investigation, the police sought directions for DNA testing of the appellant, respondent No. 1, and the child. When the appellant did not appear, respondent No. 1 filed writ petitions, leading to a Single Judge and later a Division Bench directing DNA profiling. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that Section 112 Evidence Act conclusively presumes legitimacy of a child born within lawful marriage unless non-access is proved, and no such case was pleaded. The Court examined the statutory presumption, the privacy implications under Article 21, precedents in Goutam Kundu, Bhabani Prasad Jena, Aparna Ajinkya Firodia, and Ivan Rathinam, and limits on DNA testing. It held that the child’s birth certificates, school records, and unchallenged marriage confirmed legitimacy; that simultaneous access (even if alleged) does not negate the husband’s access; and that no evidence of non-access was furnished. The Court also found that the offences alleged did not require paternity determination and that compelling DNA testing would violate the privacy and dignity of both the appellant and the now-major child.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 10.05.2017, and quashed the directions for DNA testing. It held that the statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act remained unrebutted, that no “eminent need” or evidentiary necessity justified such an intrusive order, and that DNA profiling had no direct nexus to the offences alleged in the FIR. The Court concluded that compelling the appellant or the child to undergo DNA testing would unjustifiably infringe their right to privacy and bodily autonomy under Article 21, and therefore the direction was unconstitutional and legally unsustainable.