The Supreme Court’s recent decision in R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha & Ors. (2025 INSC 1304) marks a crucial reaffirmation of judicial restraint in ordering DNA tests when the alleged crime bears no clear nexus with the question of paternity. The Court underscored that scientific techniques—no matter how advanced—cannot override statutory presumptions and constitutional guarantees of privacy unless such tests are demonstrably necessary to the justice of the case.
This judgment reiterates that the power to compel medical or forensic examinations under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)—which has replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)—which has supplanted the Indian Evidence Act, 1872—must be exercised with extreme caution. It recognises the balance between two competing concerns: society’s interest in detecting crime through modern scientific means and the individual’s right to dignity, bodily autonomy, and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Background and Factual Matrix
The case arose from a complaint filed by Respondent No. 1 (Kamar Nisha), who had been married to one Abdul Latheef since 2001. During their marriage, she became acquainted with Dr. R. Rajendran, the appellant, who treated her husband for a medical condition. Allegedly, the doctor entered into an illicit relationship with her, resulting in the birth of a child in 2007.
In 2014—seven years after the child’s birth—Kamar Nisha appeared on a television programme, accusing Dr. Rajendran of deceit and harassment. The broadcast led to an FIR No. 233/2014 for offences under Sections 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (cheating) and Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act.
During the investigation, the police sought permission from the Magistrate to conduct a DNA test on the appellant, the complainant, and the child. When the appellant refused, the matter reached the High Court, which directed the appellant to appear for sample collection. That direction was affirmed by the Division Bench. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
Issue
The Supreme Court confined itself to one key issue:
- Was the High Court justified in directing the accused to undergo DNA testing when the alleged offence had no direct nexus with the child’s paternity?
Statutory Framework and Presumption of Legitimacy
Central to the Court’s reasoning is Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 116 of BSA), which provides a conclusive presumption that a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage is legitimate unless it is shown that the spouses had no access to each other at the relevant time. The provision reads:
“The fact that any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man … shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties … had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten.”
This statutory presumption is not merely procedural; it embodies a public policy aimed at protecting children from the stigma of illegitimacy and preserving familial stability. The burden to rebut it lies heavily on the person asserting illegitimacy.
In the present case, the Court noted that the child was born in 2007, well within a subsisting marriage, and all official documents—birth certificate, school admission, and transfer certificates—listed Abdul Latheef as the father. No evidence of non-access was ever produced. Hence, the presumption of legitimacy remained intact.
Judicial Principles on Ordering DNA Tests
The Court traced the evolution of Indian jurisprudence on the use of DNA evidence:
Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993 3 SCC 418):
Established that blood or DNA tests cannot be ordered as a matter of course and may be directed only when there is a strong prima facie case and the consequences—such as branding a child illegitimate—are carefully weighed.
Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003 4 SCC 493):
Recognised the court’s power to order medical tests but stressed the need for a strong prima facie case; refusal could lead only to an adverse inference, not compulsion.
Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women (2010 8 SCC 633)
Introduced the test of “eminent need”—DNA tests should be ordered only when the truth cannot be discovered otherwise.
Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram (2001 5 SCC 311)
Held that proof to rebut legitimacy must be stronger than a mere preponderance of probabilities, but need not reach the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt.”
Applying these precedents, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that scientific truth cannot be pursued at the cost of human dignity; the law favours legitimacy and protects privacy.
Lack of Non-Access and Failure to Rebut Presumption
The complainant neither pleaded nor proved non-access between herself and her husband at the time of conception. Her allegations merely suggested an extramarital affair, which—even if true—does not suffice to displace the legal presumption of legitimacy. The Court observed:
“Mere simultaneous access does not negate the husband’s access, nor does it suffice to displace the statutory presumption under Section 112.”
Thus, the request for DNA testing was not based on any legal necessity but rather an attempt to “fishingly” confirm allegations of infidelity—something the law explicitly prohibits.
Constitutional Dimension: Privacy and Bodily Autonomy
The Court devoted considerable analysis to the right to privacy, recognised as a fundamental right in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017 10 SCC 1). Compulsory DNA testing, it held, is a serious invasion of one’s bodily integrity and personal liberty.
For any such intrusion to be justified, it must satisfy the three-fold test laid down in Puttaswamy:
- Legality – the procedure must be backed by law;
- Legitimate State aim – the test must pursue a valid investigative or public objective;
- Proportionality – the means adopted must bear a rational nexus to the objective and cause the least intrusion.
In R. Rajendran, none of these conditions were met. The alleged offences—cheating and harassment—could be investigated without establishing biological paternity. Therefore, the DNA order failed the proportionality test and amounted to an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Two-Stage Safeguard: Insufficiency of Evidence and Balance of Interests
The Court echoed its earlier decision in Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025 SCC OnLine SC 175), articulating a two-stage test before any DNA order:
- Insufficiency of existing evidence – the court must find that the available material is inadequate to decide the issue;
- Positive balance of interests – even if the evidence is insufficient, the court must ensure the DNA test will not cause disproportionate harm to any party.
Since documentary and testimonial evidence had already established legitimacy, there was no insufficiency, and compelling an adult child and an unwilling accused to provide genetic material would inflict undue psychological and constitutional harm. Thus, both blockades stood unmet.
Child’s Rights and Ethical Considerations
A crucial aspect of the judgment lies in its empathetic consideration of the child’s welfare and autonomy. The Court observed that the child, now a major, was never a party to the proceedings, and compelling her to undergo genetic testing would expose her to social stigma and emotional trauma.
Quoting from Inayath Ali v. State of Telangana (2024 7 SCC 822), the Bench noted that courts must not treat children as “material objects for forensic analysis”. Paternity questions incidental to unrelated criminal charges cannot justify intrusive biological testing.
Such directions, the Court warned, risk “bastardising innocent children”, violating their dignity and potentially affecting inheritance and social status. The judiciary must, therefore, weigh the emotional and ethical consequences alongside the evidentiary value of such tests.
Adverse Inference: When Refusal Cannot Be Penalised
Respondent No. 1 had urged that the appellant’s refusal to undergo DNA testing should invite an adverse inference under Section 114 of the Evidence Act (Section 119 of BSA). The Court rejected this argument, clarifying that such an inference arises only after a valid order for DNA testing is passed upon satisfaction of legal prerequisites.
Drawing from Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023 INSC 146), the Court explained that an adverse inference presupposes (i) a lawful order directing the test, and (ii) subsequent non-compliance. When the very necessity of the test is unproven, refusal cannot be held against the accused.
DNA Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: The Need for Nexus
The Court drew a critical distinction between cases where DNA testing is central to the alleged offence—such as rape, murder, or cases involving bodily evidence—and cases where paternity is merely collateral.
In Inayath Ali, DNA testing was disallowed because paternity bore no relevance to dowry-harassment charges. Similarly, in R. Rajendran, determining who fathered the complainant’s child was extraneous to proving cheating or harassment. Hence, directing DNA profiling amounted to judicial overreach.
The Court held that investigative tools must remain proportionate to the offence; otherwise, lawful powers risk transforming into instruments of personal intrusion.
Court’s Decision
After an exhaustive review, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order compelling the appellant to undergo DNA testing and allowed the appeal. It held:
- The statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 Evidence Act remains unrebutted;
- No nexus existed between the alleged offences and the paternity of the child;
- Sections 53 and 53A CrPC (Sections 51 and 52 of BNSS) were misapplied;
- Right to privacy and bodily autonomy of both the accused and the now-adult child would be gravely infringed;
- Scientific procedures cannot be used as fishing expeditions or speculative exercises detached from evidentiary relevance.
In emphatic words, the Court stated:
“Scientific procedures, however advanced, cannot be employed as instruments of speculation; they must be anchored in demonstrable relevance to the charge and justified by compelling investigative need.”
Conclusion
Supreme Court’s decision in R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha reasserts that scientific evidence must serve justice, not curiosity. DNA testing, though a powerful investigative tool, cannot be wielded without a clear and compelling nexus to the crime alleged.
The judgment harmonises statutory presumptions, constitutional rights, and ethical considerations into a coherent principle: truth must be pursued, but never at the cost of dignity.
In essence, the Court reminds us that justice is not only about finding facts—it is also about protecting persons. When the line between evidence and intrusion blurs, restraint becomes the highest form of wisdom.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams