The Supreme Court on Monday reinforced strict limitations on the routine use of DNA testing in legal proceedings, emphasizing that such orders represent a serious intrusion into individual privacy, bodily autonomy, and family dignity. The top court cautioned that indiscriminate DNA testing can have profound and irreversible consequences on family relationships, personal identity, and the psychological wellbeing of children involved.

A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M Pancholi underscored that DNA profiling is a highly intrusive procedure, and its use must be confined to situations where it is “eminently necessary” to secure justice. “This Court has consistently held that DNA testing cannot be ordered as a matter of course and must be subject to stringent safeguards to protect the dignity of individuals and the legitimacy of children born during wedlock,” the bench said.

The ruling came in the context of setting aside a 2017 order by the Madras High Court, which had directed DNA profiling of a doctor accused of having an extra-marital relationship with a patient’s wife and fathering her child. The allegations, which invoked Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act, included claims of cheating and harassment. The Supreme Court observed that the paternity of the child was not central to determining whether the alleged offences had occurred, and thus ordering DNA testing was “wholly extraneous” to the investigation.

The bench highlighted the delicate balance that courts must maintain between truth-seeking and the rights to privacy and bodily integrity. “When there is an apparent conflict between the right to privacy and bodily integrity on the one hand, and the Court’s duty to ascertain truth on the other, such direction can be issued only after a careful balancing of interests of all parties and upon due consideration of whether, for a just decision in the matter, DNA test is eminently necessary,” the judgment stated.

Drawing on the landmark Puttaswamy privacy judgment of 2017, the court underscored that compelling a person to undergo DNA testing constitutes a serious invasion of personal liberty. Any such measure must satisfy three tests: legality, legitimate state aim, and proportionality. In the present case, the bench concluded that the proposed test failed all three criteria.

The ethical and psychological ramifications of DNA testing were also given prominence. The court noted that forcing a test can permanently affect the identity and emotional wellbeing of the child involved, and may bring to light intimate aspects of familial and personal relationships. “Beyond the legal framework, it is also imperative to recognise the ethical and psychological dimensions of directing DNA testing. The act of extracting and analysing one’s genetic material intrudes into the innermost sphere of personal identity, autonomy, and privacy. It can have lasting emotional and social ramifications not only for children but also for adults,” the bench observed.

A critical aspect of the ruling was the reaffirmation of the statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. The provision holds that a child born during a valid marriage is conclusively presumed to be legitimate unless non-access between the spouses at the time of conception is proved. The Supreme Court warned that suspicion, allegations of infidelity, or simultaneous relationships cannot destabilize this presumption. “Section 112 stands as a bulwark against the casual illegitimisation of children,” the bench said.

By setting aside the Madras High Court’s order, the Supreme Court sent a clear signal that DNA tests should never be used casually or speculatively in civil or criminal proceedings. Judicial discretion must prioritize necessity, proportionality, and legal justification while safeguarding the dignity and privacy of all parties involved.

Experts say the judgment has significant implications for family law and criminal proceedings in India. It reinforces the principle that scientific evidence, while valuable, must not be wielded in ways that undermine individual rights or destabilize family structures. Lawyers noted that the ruling could curtail the practice of routinely seeking DNA tests in paternity or adultery cases, ensuring that courts adopt a more cautious and principled approach.

In sum, the Supreme Court’s decision is a landmark affirmation of privacy, dignity, and ethical considerations in the use of genetic testing, establishing clear guidelines to prevent its misuse and to protect the sanctity of family life in India.