Forcing Party To Undergo DNA Test Against Will Impinges On Personal Liberty & Right To Privacy
Case: Ashok Kumar v. Raj Gupta and others
Coram: Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy.
Case No: C.A No.6153/2021
Court Observation: “When the plaintiff is unwilling to subject himself to the DNA test, forcing him to undergo one would impinge on his personal liberty and his right to privacy”
“In circumstances where other evidence is available to prove or dispute the relationship, the court should ordinarily refrain from ordering blood tests. This is because such tests impinge upon the right of privacy of an individual and could also have major societal repercussions”
“Keeping in mind the issue of burden of proof, it would be safe to conclude that in a case like the present, the Court’s decision should be rendered only after balancing the interests of the parties, i.e, the quest for truth, and the social and cultural implications involved therein. The possibility of stigmatizing a person as a bastard, the ignominy that attaches to an adult who, in the mature years of his life is shown to be not the biological son of his parents may not only be a heavy cross to bear but would also intrude upon his right of privacy”
“Whether a person can be compelled to provide a sample for DNA in such matters can also be answered considering the test of proportionality laid down in the unanimous decision of this Court in K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, wherein the right to privacy has been declared a constitutionally protected right in India. The Court should therefore examine the proportionality of the legitimate aims being pursued, i.e whether the same is not arbitrary or discriminatory, whether they may have an adverse impact on the person and that they justify the encroachment upon the privacy and personal autonomy of the person, being subjected to the DNA Test”
“Therefore, the nature of further evidence to be adduced by the plaintiff (by providing DNA sample), need not be ordered by the Court at the instance of the other side. In such kind of litigation where the interest will have to be balanced and the test of eminent need is not satisfied our considered opinion is that the protection of the right to privacy of the Plaintiff should get precedence”
“The respondent cannot compel the plaintiff to adduce further evidence in support of the defendants’ case. In any case, it is the burden on a litigating party to prove his case adducing evidence in support of his plea, and the court should not compel the party to prove his case in the manner, suggested by the contesting party” “The Court is to weigh both side’s evidence with all attendant circumstances and then reach a verdict in the Suit and this is not the kind of case where a DNA test of the plaintiff is without exception”
[doc id=10897]
Keywords: Forcing Party To Undergo DNA Test, Forcing Party To Hamper Privacy
Previous Posts
Labour Courts Cannot Overturn Management’s Decision On Mere Hypothesis: Supreme Court
Order IX Rule 13 CPC: Supreme Court Holds Defendant Who Refused Summons Not Entitled To Seek Setting Aside Of Ex-Parte Decree Download Judgement
