New Delhi, November 10, 2025: The Supreme Court on Monday underscored that DNA testing is a deeply intrusive procedure and cannot be ordered routinely. A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul Pancholi emphasized that such tests must adhere to stringent safeguards to protect the dignity of individuals and the legitimacy of children born during wedlock.

The court clarified that the authority to direct DNA tests should be exercised with the utmost circumspection and only when justice imperatively demands such measures. “Forcefully subjecting an individual to DNA testing constitutes a grave intrusion upon privacy and personal liberty,” the bench observed. Such an intrusion can be justified only if it satisfies the threefold test of legality, a legitimate State aim, and proportionality.

Background of the Case

The judgment arose from a petition filed by a Tamil Nadu-based doctor challenging an order of the Madras High Court, which had directed him to appear at Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, for collection of blood samples for DNA profiling.

The case involved a Muslim woman from Pattukottai who contended that poverty forced her into marriage with a divorcee in 2001. The husband, suffering from a skin ailment, had sought treatment from the doctor, who allegedly developed an improper physical relationship with the woman instead of following the husband’s instructions for medical referral. This relationship resulted in the birth of a child in 2007.

The petitioner claimed that her husband abandoned her after the birth, while the doctor promised to support her and the child. When she later demanded marriage and recognition of their relationship, the doctor refused, leading to disputes and eventual public exposure of her complaint on a Tamil TV channel. An FIR was subsequently registered under Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act.

Supreme Court Observations

The apex court set aside the High Court order directing DNA testing, stating that it stemmed from a fundamental misapprehension of both statutory provisions and constitutional safeguards. Key observations included:

• The alleged offences under Sections 417 and 420 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Actdid not warrant DNA analysis.
• The High Court misapplied Sections 53 and 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which permit medical examinations only when directly relevant to evidence for the alleged offence.
• Compelling DNA testing in this context transformed lawful investigative authority into an intrusive measure that violated bodily autonomy and privacy rights.

The bench stressed that scientific procedures, no matter how advanced, cannot be used for speculative purposes. They must be demonstrably relevant to the charge and justified by a compelling investigative need. Courts must remain vigilant against “fishing inquiries masquerading as legitimate requests for scientific evidence,” ensuring that family relationships and personal dignity are not compromised.

Key Takeaways

1. DNA tests are intrusive: They impact personal liberty and bodily autonomy and should be used only when absolutely necessary.
2. Strict safeguards required: Orders must pass the test of legality, legitimate State purpose, and proportionality.
3. Limited applicability: Routine DNA testing in cases where the alleged offences do not directly relate to the biological evidence is impermissible.
4. Judicial vigilance essential: Courts must guard against speculative or exploratory use of scientific procedures that could harm individuals’ privacy or dignity.

The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that the use of advanced scientific techniques in investigations must be carefully circumscribed, balancing investigative needs with fundamental rights, including privacy, bodily autonomy, and protection of family relationships.

---