A bench of justices Aftab Alam and R M Lodha, which had asked Tiwari to tell the procedure preferred by him for the test, then declined to stay the order of the Delhi High Court in the three-year-old paternity suit filed by a 31-year-old man claiming to be his biological son.
The High Court had earlier asked the Hyderabad-based Centre for DNA, Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD) to conduct DNA test on 85-year-old Tiwari. Earlier, the Bench had said that if Tiwari agrees to undergo the test then the court would ensure that its finding would not be made public until it is required.
The court had said that considering the age of the leader, it is necessary to have a DNA test so that the young man is not left without any remedy if something happens to Tiwari.
Tiwari, who has held the post of chief minister of undivided Uttar Pradesh and later of Uttarakhand, contended that it would be a violation of his right to privacy and would cause him public humiliation if he is directed to undergo the DNA test.
He contended that the High Court had committed an error in passing the order and it should look at other evidence too to decide the paternity suit rather than focusing on the DNA test which is not a conclusive evidence. The Bench then agreed to hear his appeal against the High Court order for the test and issued notice to 31-year old Rohit Shekhar who claims to be his biological son but refused to stay it.
A single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court had on December 23 asked Tiwari to undergo the DNA test on a paternity suit filed by Rohit, who claims to be his biological son born out of the leader's alleged relationship with his mother Ujjawala Sharma.
The court had asked him to undergo the test saying the wider interest of a child that he should not be declared a "bastard" has to be kept in mind. Tiwari, who was forced to resign as governor after allegations of sexual misconduct, had countered the charges claiming that he never had any physical relationship with Ujjawala, who is also a Congress activist, and Shekhar was not entitled to seek a DNA test as a matter of right.