P&H High Court: Child’s Right to Identity Overrides Parental Privacy

In a landmark decision poised to significantly impact family and privacy law in India, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ruled that a child’s fundamental right to know their parentage outweighs a man’s right to privacy. The ruling, delivered by Justice Archana Puri on August 15, 2025, permitted a paternity DNA test to be conducted, despite the man’s objections citing his right to privacy. This judgment re-emphasizes the judiciary's role in balancing competing fundamental rights and provides a new legal avenue for children seeking to establish their identity.

The case originated from a suit filed by an adult son seeking to establish that the defendant, a man with whom his mother had a relationship, was his biological father. The man resisted the suit, arguing that since the son was born during the subsistence of his mother's marriage to her former husband, the conclusive presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applied. This provision states that a child born during a valid marriage is "conclusive proof" of legitimacy, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other. The man also asserted that a compulsory DNA test would violate his right to privacy and dignity.

The High Court dismissed the man's revision petition, observing that the facts of the case were unique. Justice Puri noted that the dispute was not between a husband and wife, but rather, involved a child who had reached adulthood and was voluntarily seeking to establish his identity. The Court held, "Justice to this child...demands that truth be known, when truth has to be established, as it undoubtedly can." The judgment concluded that the right to privacy "cannot override the right of the child and vest interest in his favour." While upholding the trial court's order for a DNA test, the High Court clarified that no police force can be used to compel the man to provide a sample, but his refusal would entitle the trial court to draw an adverse inference against him.

Re-Evaluating the Presumption Under Section 112

The core of the Punjab and Haryana High Court's ruling lies in its nuanced interpretation of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act. Historically, this provision has served as a powerful shield, protecting a child from the stigma of illegitimacy. Courts, including the Supreme Court, have been cautious about ordering DNA tests, particularly when a husband seeks to disown a child born during a valid marriage, as seen in landmark cases like Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993). In such instances, the presumption of legitimacy is strong and can only be rebutted by proving "non-access."

However, the present ruling distinguishes itself by contextualizing the dispute. When the child themselves, upon attaining majority, challenges the legal presumption and seeks to uncover their biological truth, the rationale behind Section 112 shifts. The court effectively recognized that the purpose of the law is to protect the child, not to create a permanent legal fiction that denies their right to identity. The judgment suggests that where the child's own assertion and volition are the driving force behind the claim, the traditional non-access exception to Section 112 is not the only criterion for ordering a DNA test. This marks a significant departure from the strict, rigid application of the provision and aligns the law with contemporary social and scientific realities.

Balancing Privacy and the Right to Identity

The judgment is a significant legal commentary on the ongoing judicial effort to balance the right to privacy with other fundamental rights. Following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), which declared privacy a fundamental right, lower courts have been tasked with navigating its contours in diverse legal contexts.

In the context of family law, the conflict is particularly acute. The privacy of the alleged father is pitted against the child's right to identity, a right that is increasingly recognized as an essential component of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in this case, has clearly established a hierarchy of rights, holding that the child's right to know his parentage is a more "eminent need" that takes precedence over the man's privacy claims. This finding is critical for practitioners as it provides a clear judicial directive on how such conflicts are to be resolved. It demonstrates that the right to privacy is not absolute and can be justifiably restricted where it serves a larger, constitutionally protected interest, in this case, the right to identity and justice for the child.

This approach is in line with the Supreme Court's own evolving jurisprudence on the matter. While the apex court has, in various rulings, cautioned against the routine use of DNA tests, it has never completely ruled them out. For instance, in Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women (2010), the Supreme Court held that DNA tests should be ordered only when "it is eminently needed" and "for the best interests of the child." The Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment fits squarely within this framework, concluding that the child's right to know his parentage constitutes an "eminent need."

Practical Implications for Family Law Practitioners

For lawyers specializing in family law, this ruling offers several key takeaways and implications for future litigation:

• Paternity Suits by Adult Children: This judgment provides a strong legal precedent for paternity suits initiated by children who have come of age. It signals that courts are likely to view such claims with greater empathy and may be more inclined to order scientific tests to ascertain the truth, moving beyond the traditional constraints of Section 112.

• Balancing of Rights: Practitioners must be prepared to frame arguments that effectively balance the competing rights of privacy and identity. While a person's right to privacy is fundamental, it can be argued that a child's right to identity is a matter of profound importance, forming the very foundation of their being and future legal rights, including inheritance and maintenance.

• Adverse Inference: The court's ruling on adverse inference is of particular strategic importance. While it respected the man's bodily integrity by prohibiting forced DNA collection, it simultaneously ensured that his refusal to cooperate would have legal consequences. This makes refusal a high-risk strategy, as the court can then presume the child’s claim to be true, strengthening the child's case significantly.

• The Best Interest of the Child: The judgment reinforces the principle that the "best interest of the child" is the paramount consideration in family disputes. While this principle is often applied in custody matters, this case extends it to the realm of identity and parentage, highlighting that a child's emotional and psychological well-being, which is tied to their identity, is a matter of judicial concern.

In conclusion, the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision is not merely a procedural ruling but a substantive development in Indian jurisprudence. It modernizes the application of a 150-year-old law, ensuring that it remains relevant in an age of scientific certainty and evolving privacy norms. It places the dignity and identity of the child at the forefront of the legal discourse, providing practitioners with a powerful tool to secure justice for those seeking to uncover their roots. This judgment will undoubtedly guide future family law proceedings, encouraging a more truth-oriented and rights-based approach to the sensitive issue of parentage.