Supreme Court Upholds DNA Test in Paternity Case, Balances Privacy Against Right to Know Parentage

In April 2026, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with lower-court orders that had directed a man to undergo a DNA test. The test was sought in a civil suit filed by a person who claimed to be his biological son. A two-judge bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh held that the man's right to privacy had to be weighed against the alleged son's long-standing wish to settle the question of his parentage, which had affected his life for years. A DNA test is a scientific examination that compares genetic material to confirm whether two people are biologically related.

The dispute began when the claimant, who had reached adulthood, asked the court to formally declare his paternity and to give him a share in the property of the man he said was his father. The man had denied being the father since 1999. The court explained that judges decide whether to order a DNA test using three tests: whether parentage is directly in question, whether any other evidence on record could answer the question instead, and whether ordering the test serves justice and the interests of those involved. Because the man had denied paternity for over two decades and no other evidence existed, the court allowed the DNA test to settle the matter.

Indian law does not have a clear rule that allows courts to order DNA tests. Instead, the rules have grown case by case through court judgments. A key provision is Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, which presumes that a child born during a valid marriage, or within 280 days of its end, is the legitimate child of the husband unless it is proved that the couple had no access to each other when the child could have been conceived. Courts have held that this presumption is strong and cannot be set aside by mere suspicion. Over the years, judgments such as Goutam Kundu (1993), Dipanwita Roy (2014), Aparna Ajinkya Firodia (2023) and Ivan Rathinam (2025) shaped a careful approach in which courts hesitate to order such tests and try to avoid labelling a child as illegitimate.

The most important link for exam preparation is the Right to Privacy. In the landmark Justice K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India case of 2017, a nine-judge bench declared the right to privacy a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects life and personal liberty. Because a DNA test forces a person to give a body sample, it touches this right. At the same time, an individual has a genuine interest in knowing who his biological parent is. The 2026 verdict shows that the right to privacy is not absolute: courts must balance it against other important interests on a case-by-case basis.

For an aspirant, the key idea to remember is the "balance of interests" approach. The court does not automatically order a DNA test; it only does so when there is no other way to answer the question and when the benefit to one party outweighs the harm of intruding on the other's privacy and dignity. This connects the topic of fundamental rights, the Indian Evidence Act, and important Supreme Court judgments into one theme.