Summary
The Court set aside a direction compelling a plaintiff claiming inheritance rights to undergo DNA testing at the defendants’ request. He had already closed his evidence and relied on documentary material concerning his relationship to the deceased owners. A strong prima facie case and eminent need for testing had not been demonstrated; privacy and personal autonomy prevailed in these circumstances. The suit must proceed on the evidence, with any question of adverse inference from refusal left for consideration in that context.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff could be compelled to undergo DNA testing after closing his evidence in a suit claiming ownership through parentage.
- How privacy, the need for scientific evidence and possible adverse inference should be balanced.
Provisions considered
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaPrivacy and personal autonomy required a proportionate justification for compelled DNA testing, which was absent on these facts. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 17)
- Section 112, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The Court recalled the protection of legitimacy and the demanding standard for displacing the statutory presumption when considering whether DNA testing was necessary. (¶¶ 8, 11.1, 11.2)
- Section 114, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Refusal to undergo testing may raise a question of adverse inference; the suit must be decided by weighing the evidence and attendant circumstances. No such inference was conclusively drawn in this appeal. (¶ 15)
Held
- DNA testing cannot be ordered routinely or for a roving inquiry. A strong prima facie case, sufficient material and eminent need must be shown, with the consequences and competing interests carefully balanced. Where other evidence can establish or dispute the relationship, courts should ordinarily refrain from ordering such testing. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11.1, 12)
- The plaintiff had already produced documentary evidence, including affidavits and certificates, and it was the defendants’ turn to lead evidence. In this setting, the need for additional DNA evidence did not justify intrusion into his privacy. The opposing party could not compel him to prove his case in its preferred manner. (¶¶ 4, 7, 13, 14, 16, 17)
- The plaintiff’s refusal did not decide the ownership suit. Its outcome depended on the nature and quality of both sides’ evidence; possible adverse inference remained a matter to consider with all attendant circumstances. (¶¶ 15, 17)
- The High Court’s direction for DNA testing was set aside and the trial court’s refusal restored. The suit was to proceed, with the parties bearing their respective costs. (¶¶ 17, 18)
Result
Appeal allowed. High Court order set aside; trial court order refusing DNA testing restored. Suit to proceed; parties to bear their own costs.