Karnataka HC Limits Compelled DNA Paternity Tests, Reinforces Privacy Under Evidence Act

The Karnataka High Court passed a significant decision on the admissibility of DNA testing in paternity cases on 4 September. The Court said that any compelled DNA test must meet the high standards of an exception in Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which acknowledges the presumption of legitimacy of the child born in a lawful marriage unless non-access between the partners at the time of conception can be established.

The judgment underlines that mere allegations are not enough to make intrusive scientific tests. The Court noted that compelling DNA analysis that lacks prima facie evidence of non-access would infringe the privacy of marriage and the sanctity of family life. The assumption in Section 112 is a defining pillar of societal ethical standards and family integrity, the Bench observed, and warned that matrimonial relationships could not be turned into forensic evidence alone.

Section 112, the Presumption of Legitimacy

Section 112 of the Evidence Act sets up a conclusive presumption that a child born by lawful wedlock is legitimate unless it is established that the parties had no opportunity to cohabit at the time. The reason why this provision is implemented is that it will help avoid the disruption of family ties and ensure that children do not experience the stigma of social problems.

Using this threshold to tie DNA testing, the Court reinstated that technological evidence would not take precedence over the statutory presumptions without special legal requirements. This will help the preservation of privacy, dignity and stability without necessarily sacrificing the same because DNA technology provides scientific certainty.

Inherent Warnings in Judicial Orders of Indiscriminate DNA

The rationale used by the Karnataka HC has been a replica of previous Supreme Court warnings. Justice Krishna Iyer had remarked that the impact of the compulsory DNA tests in all challenged paternity cases would be the breakdown of marital trust and annihilation of family harmony.

In Banarsi Dass v. Teeku Dutta (2005) and Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (2015), the apex court made a delicate compromise to allow DNA testing when it was utterly needed to settle a dispute and when the party making the request had to prove a credible case. This is a cautious jurisprudence that the decision of the High Court upholds, thus making it very clear that DNA testing cannot be regarded as a default solution.

The Court Decision to Only Go as far as Non-Access

This is judged based on two important considerations:

Marital Privacy

Coercing a married person to get a DNA test conducted without a substantive basis is a violation of the privacy right of the person as provided in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court emphasised the fact that privacy in marriage is as much entitled to protection as individual privacy.

Public Morality and Family

Presumptions of legitimacy safeguard the child, as well as the parents. The indiscriminate DNA orders are likely to jeopardise the legitimisation of children, disrupt families, and weaken the trust society has in the matrimonial institutions.

Therefore, the necessity to provide evidence of non-access before an order of a DNA test means that the scientific truth is put opposite to the social and constitutional values.

The Family Law Practical Implications

• Less Dependence on DNA Testing: The courts can now ignore a lot of habitual requests for DNA tests in matrimonial controversies.

• Demanded Strategic Pleadings: To be able to have DNA evidence taken into account, petitioners must plead and demonstrate circumstances of non-access, like years of separation, foreign residence, or medical impossibility, ty in a court.

• Protection of the Accused Spouses: The decision protects spouses (in most cases, women) against the forced participation in DNA testing due to mere suspicion, so that harassment in the court of law against a contested family case is minimised.

Trade-offs between Science and Social Values

The ruling of the Court represents a further effort of the judiciary to balance current science and the traditional law protection. Although DNA evidence can provide almost absolute accuracy in identifying paternity, its application in courts is limited by privacy and dignity and the well-being of the child.

The practice echoes the greater constitutional spirit: the technologies should not be permitted to destroy the social safeguards embodied in statute. Although the presumption of legitimacy can be refuted, it has a valuable purpose in assuring vulnerable family members of the unwarranted stigma.

Future Projections and Potential Obstacles

In the future, the case can guide the way other High Courts and the Supreme Court would treat DNA-related petitions:

• Custody and Maintenance: The best interests of the child will take precedence over forensic truth, and the courts will resist any use of DNA orders unless necessary.

• Inheritance Disputes: The parties who are trying to question the right of succession by proving the DNA tests that they are trying to do might have a greater burden of evidence.

• Review of Constitutions: The conflict between scientific truth and legislative assumptions might turn into an invitation for a bigger constitutional court to revisit Section 112 under the constitutional right to privacy.

Although the decision upholds the old standards, it is not closed to the fact that in exceptional circumstances, when justice cannot otherwise have been administered, DNA testing may yet be commissioned.

It is a Ginger Step Towards Safeguarding Marital Privacy

The decision of the Karnataka High Court supports the judiciary with its wary approach to DNA evidence in paternity cases. By imposing conditions of conforming to Section 112 and allowing the privacy of marriage, the Court has come out to declare that science may not overshadow the social morality and values of the Constitution.