Courts must not permit DNA tests for the asking: Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru: The courts must not permit DNA tests for the asking, unless the condition stipulated in section 112 of the Evidence Act is fulfilled, the high court has said.

The court answering an application must bear in mind the interwoven delicate balance between the test, right to privacy, and dignity, as ordained in the Constitution of India, Justice M Nagaprasanna said while quashing the order passed by a civil court at Channarayapatna in Hassan district, which permitted a DNA test in a partition dispute.

The dispute pertains to a 2016 partition suit filed by A S Umesh and A S Lokesh, sons of A C Sanne Gowda. The defendants in the suit are Sanne Gowda, his second wife Lakshmamma and their son Harish Kumar.

The petitioner Harish Kumar moved the high court challenging the order of the civil court for DNA test. He submitted that the plaintiffs (Umesh and Lokesh) had filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking DNA tests of three defendants to determine blood relation and paternity by way of scientific examination. On April 5, 2025, the civil court allowed the application, despite the objections of the defendants, Sanne Gowda and Lakshmamma.

It was argued on behalf of Harish Kumar that there is ample evidence to show that the marriage occurred between Sanne Gowda and Lakshmamma and that the order permitting DNA test is violative of his rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

On the other hand, Suresh and Lokesh argued that a DNA test has already been conducted and the report is yet to be placed before the court.

The court perused various judgements in the matter and said that the Apex Court had cautioned that compelling such tests without imminent need, imperils not only the sanctity of marriage, but legitimacy of the child and also becomes violative of the fundamental rights to privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act is steeped in the maxim pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant – the father is he whom the marriage indicates, which would mean the presumption of legitimacy of a child born during lawful wedlock. The blood test – DNA test must be permitted only in terms of the rigor of Section 112 of the Evidence Act, which would be a demonstrable non-access during the period of birth of the child, as the presumption under 0020 of Section 112 is rooted in public morality and societal peace,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.

“In the case at hand, a plethora of marital disputes existed between defendants 1 and 2 for ages. The child is born from the said wedlock. The concerned court has blissfully ignored this fact. Therefore, the courts answering the application shall strictly adhere to the law, as narrated in the course of the order,” the court said, declaring null and void all consequential proceedings, including DNA examination and any report prepared thereto.