Ahmedabad Times

New Delhi: Can a person’s proper to privateness defeat a baby’s lifelong seek for the identification of his father? The Supreme Court docket answered that query by directing a DNA take a look at and holding that courts should stability each pursuits, notably the place paternity lies on the coronary heart of the dispute and no different proof can present a definitive reply.

A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh, on Friday, dismissed an enchantment by a person resisting a DNA examination and upheld an order directing genetic testing to find out whether or not he was the organic father of the claimant born in 1999.

Balancing competing rights, the courtroom mentioned that the case concerned not merely the privateness issues of the alleged father but in addition the claimant’s lifelong quest for certainty about his identification.

“So far as the fitting of privateness is anxious, we’re balancing, on this case, (the person’s) privateness with the respondent’s (claimant’s) need for closure on a query that has loomed massive on his life all through,” held the bench.

The courtroom famous that the claimant grew up watching his mom constantly assert that the appellant was his father, whereas official authorities repeatedly reached opposite conclusions.

“If no constructive reply is ever came upon to the query, it’s fairly doable that the claimant would endlessly be denied the rights he could in any other case be entitled to by advantage of being the appellant’s son,” said the judgment.

The dispute arose from a civil go well with filed by the claimant looking for a declaration concerning his paternity. In keeping with the judgment, the alleged relationship between his mom and the appellant dated again to January 1999, whereas the claimant was born in September that yr. The appellant constantly denied being his father. The courtroom famous that there was no suggestion that the claimant’s mom had an intimate relationship with anybody else through the related interval.

The Supreme Court docket underlined that the query of paternity was not a collateral challenge however lay on the coronary heart of the litigation itself.

In contrast to instances the place paternity is just incidental to the dispute, the current go well with was instituted particularly to find out whether or not the appellant was the claimant’s organic father. For the reason that challenge was immediately in query and there was no different proof able to offering a categorical reply, the courtroom discovered a DNA take a look at essential.

The judgment revisited a sequence of current rulings governing DNA testing in household disputes and reiterated that such exams can’t be ordered routinely.

The courtroom referred to its earlier selections laying down that DNA profiling ought to ordinarily be directed solely in distinctive instances the place the controversy can’t be resolved by typical proof and the place the take a look at turns into indispensable for arriving on the fact.

It additionally cited the ideas laid down in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia Vs Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2024) and Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph (2025), which require courts to stability privateness, dignity and social penalties towards a baby’s legit curiosity in understanding their organic parentage.

Quoting from the Ivan Rathinam ruling, the bench reiterated that courts should assess each the insufficiency of accessible proof and the stability of competing pursuits earlier than directing a DNA take a look at.

Making use of these ideas, the bench concluded that the stability decisively favoured the claimant. “The stability of pursuits positively lies in favour of the respondent,” held the courtroom whereas dismissing the enchantment.

The courtroom then directed the trial courtroom to repair a date for conducting the DNA take a look at and thereafter proceed with the civil go well with in accordance with the result of the examination.

END