Supreme Court Rules on DNA Paternity Test in Matrimonial Dispute

#GS-2 #Indian Polity & Constitution #Judiciary #Current Events #National

Key takeaways

Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 presumes a child born during marriage or within 280 days of dissolution to be legitimate.
The Supreme Court in Goutam Kundu (1993) established that a DNA test cannot be ordered as a routine first resort in paternity disputes.
In Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik (2014), the court ruled that scientific truth overrides legal presumptions of legitimacy when they conflict.
The Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025) ruling mandated an eminent need for DNA testing while balancing child welfare against social stigma.

The Supreme Court recently upheld a trial court order directing a DNA test of a child during a matrimonial case involving unchastity allegations and contested paternity.

Under Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, a child born during a valid marriage or within 280 days after its dissolution is legally presumed to be legitimate.
This Section 116 of the BSA, 2023 directly corresponds to Section 112 of the former Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Courts cannot order a DNA test routinely on mere paternity claims unless an exceptional situation arises where existing evidence proves insufficient.

In Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993), the court established that DNA tests cannot be a first resort and require a strong primary proof of non-access between spouses.
In Banarsi Dass v. Teeku Dutta (2005), the court ruled that DNA testing should not be ordered routinely and must remain restricted to rare exceptional matters.
In Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2014), the court held that scientific truth should prevail whenever scientific evidence directly conflicts with legal presumptions.
In Rohit Shekhar v. Narayan Dutt Tiwari (2014), the court allowed a DNA test by prioritizing the biological identity rights of the child over personal privacy concerns.
In Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025), the court emphasized that DNA tests require an eminent need while balancing social stigma, privacy, and the child's welfare.