The Supreme Court delivered a nuanced judgment on a sensitive issue intertwining an individual’s right to know their biological father with another’s right to privacy. This decision came in response to a two-decade-long case involving a 23-year-old man’s quest to establish his paternity through a DNA test—an effort he linked to pressing health and financial concerns.
The case originated from a claim made by the man that he was born out of his mother’s extramarital affair, leading him to seek a declaration of paternity for maintenance purposes. The legal journey began when his mother attempted to change his birth record at the Cochin Municipal Corporation after her divorce in 2006, a request that was denied without a court order.
The justices, Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, examined the intricate layers of legal and ethical questions posed by the demand for a DNA test to establish paternity against the backdrop of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The act presumes that a child born during a marriage is the legitimate child of the couple unless proven otherwise through ‘non-access’.
The High Court had previously ruled in favor of allowing the son to claim maintenance from the biological father, irrespective of the child’s legitimacy. This decision was appealed in the Supreme Court, which reassessed the implications of such a presumption on privacy rights and social stigmas associated with illegitimacy.
Arguments from both sides highlighted the complexities of distinguishing between ‘paternity’ and ‘legitimacy’. The counsel for the alleged biological father argued against the imposition of a DNA test, citing the lack of evidence proving non-access between the mother and her husband during the time of conception. Conversely, the son’s lawyer asserted that maintenance could be sought from a biological father regardless of marital legitimacy.
The Supreme Court ultimately held that while the quest for biological truth is legitimate, it must be balanced against the potential social and personal repercussions of such revelations. The court emphasized the need to protect individuals’ privacy and dignity, ruling that forcefully undergoing a DNA test could expose personal matters to public scrutiny, thus infringing on an individual’s right to privacy.
The court directed that the case be closed, citing its extensive duration and the emotional toll on the parties involved. It reaffirmed that paternity within the bounds of marriage is to be upheld under Section 112 of the Evidence Act unless unequivocal proof of non-access is presented.
