New Delhi: Can a man’s right to privacy nullify a child’s lifelong search for his father’s identity? The Supreme Court answered this question by introducing DNA testing and arguing that courts must balance the two interests, especially when paternity is at the heart of the dispute and no other evidence can provide a definitive answer.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Koteswar Singh on Friday dismissed an appeal by a man who resisted DNA testing and upheld an order directing genetic testing to determine whether he is the biological father of the plaintiff born in 1999.
Weighing competing rights, the court said the case concerned not only the alleged father’s privacy concerns but also the plaintiff’s lifelong quest to ascertain his identity.
“With regard to the right to privacy, we are balancing, in this case, between (the man’s) privacy and the desire of the defendant (the plaintiff) to put an end to a question that has loomed large over his life all along.”
The court noted that the plaintiff grew up watching his mother constantly confirm that the appellant was his father, while official authorities repeatedly reached contrary conclusions.
“If a positive answer is not found to this question, it is very likely that the plaintiff will be forever deprived of the rights to which he was entitled by virtue of being the appellant’s son,” the ruling said.
The dispute arose out of a civil action brought by the plaintiff to obtain a declaration regarding his paternity. According to the ruling, the alleged relationship between his mother and the appellant dates back to January 1999, while the plaintiff was born in September of that year. The appellant consistently denied that he was his father. The court noted that there was no indication that the plaintiff’s mother was in an intimate relationship with anyone else during the relevant period.
The Supreme Court stressed that the issue of paternity is not a secondary issue but lies at the heart of the lawsuit itself.
Unlike cases where paternity is only incidental to the dispute, the present action was brought specifically to determine whether appellant was plaintiff’s biological father. Since the case was directly in question and there was no alternative evidence capable of providing a conclusive answer, the court found that DNA testing was necessary.
The ruling revisited a series of recent rulings governing DNA testing in family disputes and reiterated that such tests cannot be routinely requested.
The Court referred to its previous decisions stating that DNA analysis should normally only be directed in exceptional cases where the dispute cannot be resolved by conventional evidence and where testing becomes indispensable for arriving at the truth.
It also cited the principles laid down in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2024) and Evan Rathinam v Milan Joseph (2025), which require courts to balance privacy, dignity and social consequences with the child’s legitimate interest in knowing his or her biological lineage.
Citing the Ivan Rathinam judgment, the bench reiterated that courts must assess the inadequacy of available evidence and the balance of competing interests before directing DNA testing.
Applying these principles, the Tribunal concluded that the balance was decisively in favor of the plaintiff. “The balance of interests is definitely in favor of the defendant,” the court said while dismissing the appeal.
The court then ordered the court of first instance to set a date to conduct a DNA test and then proceed with the civil lawsuit according to the results of the test.
end
