Supreme Court Upholds DNA Paternity Test Order, Balances Privacy Against Child's Right to Know Father
A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Kotiswar Singh dismissed a father's appeal against a DNA test order, holding that Amar Pradhan's right to know his biological parentage outweighed the privacy claim.
The Supreme Court on 29 May 2026 dismissed a civil appeal filed by Chaturbhuj Pradhan (CP), who had challenged concurrent orders of the First Additional Civil Judge, Class–II, Basna and the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur directing him to undergo a DNA test to determine the paternity of Amar Pradhan. The Court, applying a line of its own precedents on DNA testing in paternity disputes, held that paternity was directly in issue in the pending civil suit, that no other evidence could provide a categorical answer, and that the balance of interests lay firmly in favour of Amar. The Civil Court was directed to fix a date for the DNA test and proceed in the civil suit in accordance with the result.
How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court
Amar Pradhan was born on 10 September 1999. His mother — the second respondent — asserts that he was conceived from a consensual relationship with CP in January 1999. CP has consistently denied paternity and relies on his acquittal in a case registered by the second respondent under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. That acquittal was recorded by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case No. 268/1999 by a judgment dated 31 December 1999.
Between 2003 and 2010, the parties were engaged in several rounds of maintenance litigation. In Misc. Crl. Case No. 113 of 2005, CP's appeal before the High Court against a maintenance grant produced an observation that Amar and the second respondent had failed to establish any relationship with CP. That order was challenged before the Supreme Court and was disposed of in a Lok Adalat. By then Amar had turned 24, and the Lok Adalat recorded that nothing survived in the matter.
During the pendency of that appeal, Amar — having attained majority — filed Civil Suit No. 13A/2019 seeking a declaration that he is CP's son and that he is entitled to a one-third share in CP's property. The Civil Court ordered a DNA test on 21 September 2019. CP appealed to the High Court, which dismissed the appeal in WP No. 540 of 2021 by order dated 16 June 2025, observing that no other kind of evidence would be sufficient to clearly establish Amar's paternity. CP then filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4016 of 2026 before the Supreme Court. Leave was granted and the matter was heard as a civil appeal.
Arguments Before the Court
CP contended that no one can be compelled to give a DNA sample, that there was no eminent need for such a test, and that no adverse inference under Section 114(h) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 could be drawn against him at this stage. He also argued that Amar's civil suit was barred by res judicata, given the earlier maintenance proceedings and the High Court's observation that no relationship had been established.
Amar's side countered that CP's continuous denial of paternity left no other recourse to determine the question. It was submitted that the balance of interests favoured Amar because Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act — which raises a presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage — had no application on the facts. The right to privacy available to CP, it was argued, is not absolute. On res judicata, Amar's counsel submitted that the earlier proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were instituted by the second respondent, were summary in nature, and did not amount to a proper finding on paternity.
The Controlling Precedents
The Court surveyed four of its own decisions before applying them to the facts.
In Goutam Kundu v. State of W.B., (1993) 3 SCC 418, the Court had laid down that courts cannot order a blood test as a matter of course, that there must be a strong prima facie case, and that “no one can be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis.”
In Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy, (2015) 1 SCC 365, the Court held that depending on the facts, it is permissible to direct a DNA examination to determine the veracity of allegations, but that “if the direction to hold such a test can be avoided, it should be so avoided” because the legitimacy of a child should not be put to peril.
In Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, (2024) 7 SCC 773, the Court synthesised the earlier case law into a set of principles. A DNA test is not to be ordered routinely. It may be directed only where there is no other mode of proving the assertion, only in exceptional and deserving cases where the test becomes indispensable, and only after the court finds it impossible to draw an inference from the available evidence. The court must also be mindful of consequences for the child, including social stigma and inheritance-related effects.
In Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 175, the Court articulated a two-stage test: first, the court must assess whether existing evidence is insufficient to reach a finding; second, if that insufficiency is established, the court must consider whether ordering a DNA test is in the best interests of the parties and does not cause undue harm. The Court described these as “two blockades to ordering a DNA test: (i) insufficiency of evidence; and (ii) a positive finding regarding the balance of interests.”
The bench noted that all four decisions had been recently followed by the same bench in Nikhat Parveen v. Rafique, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 652.
Applying the Test to Chaturbhuj Pradhan's Case
The Court distilled the governing standard to two questions: whether the result of the DNA test is directly in issue, and whether any other evidence on record can substitute for the answer that the scientific process would provide. A third consideration is whether the test is in the best interest of the parties and of justice.
On the first question, the Court found that paternity is directly in issue in Amar's civil suit, which was filed for precisely that purpose. The earlier maintenance proceedings were summary in nature and did not constitute a full-dress trial. The observations made in those proceedings — that the second respondent had failed to establish any link between CP and Amar — were therefore not findings that could operate as res judicata in the civil suit.
On the second question, the Court found that CP has consistently denied paternity and that there is no other evidence capable of providing a categorical answer. It was nobody's case that the second respondent had ever had an intimate relationship with anyone else.
On the balance of interests, the Court weighed CP's right to privacy against what it described as Amar's desire for closure on a question that had loomed large over his entire life. From childhood, Amar had seen his mother assert that CP was his father while authorities consistently found otherwise. The Court observed that if no positive answer were ever arrived at, Amar could forever be denied rights he might otherwise be entitled to as CP's son. The balance, the Court held, lay definitively in Amar's favour.
Res Judicata and Privacy
The Court disposed of the res judicata argument briefly. Having found that the civil suit raises the question of paternity directly and that the earlier proceedings were summary, it held that the question of res judicata was closed by the same reasoning.
On privacy, the Court acknowledged CP's right but held that it is not absolute. In the specific circumstances — where Amar has lived his entire life without a definitive answer to the question of his parentage — the privacy interest yields to the competing interest in reaching the truth through the civil suit.
Order
The Supreme Court found no error in the impugned judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh and dismissed the civil appeal. It directed the concerned Civil Court to fix a date for conducting the DNA test and to proceed further in Civil Suit No. 13A/2019 in accordance with the result received. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of. No order as to costs was made.