Editorial-21/06/2026
Just Truths: On DNA Evidence and Rights
Introduction
The intersection of DNA evidence and fundamental rights represents one of the most complex constitutional challenges in contemporary Indian jurisprudence. DNA testing, with its scientific infallibility, has emerged as a transformative tool in criminal investigations and paternity disputes, yet its mandatory application raises profound questions about privacy, bodily autonomy, and the right against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court's recent rulings, particularly in CP vs AP (2026) and Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025), have established a nuanced framework that positions DNA testing as a last resort rather than a routine procedure. This editorial examines how the judiciary balances the pursuit of scientific truth with the preservation of individual rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Scientific Revolution in Evidence Law
DNA fingerprinting technology, discovered in 1985, has revolutionized criminal justice systems worldwide. In India, DNA evidence has become increasingly crucial in rape cases, homicide investigations, and paternity disputes. The genetic information contained in DNA samples provides unparalleled accuracy in establishing biological relationships and identifying perpetrators. The Supreme Court in Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025) recognized this transformative potential while issuing uniform guidelines to standardise procedures and safeguard forensic credibility.
However, the growing reliance on DNA evidence has raised critical constitutional questions. While DNA profiling strengthens the right to a fair trial by enhancing evidentiary accuracy, its intrusive nature necessitates robust procedural safeguards to protect individual autonomy and dignity. The admissibility of DNA evidence remains somewhat dicey in Indian jurisdiction, competing between the demands of justice and the protection of privacy.
Constitutional Framework: Privacy and Bodily Autonomy
The constitutional foundation for limiting compelled DNA testing rests primarily on Article 21, which encompasses the right to privacy as a fundamental right. The landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) enshrined the right to privacy—including the protection of genetic information—as fundamental. This judgment introduced a limitation not previously considered in paternity law, applying the three-part test of legality, legitimate objectives, and proportionality.
The three-fold requirement for any invasion of life or personal liberty demands: (i) legality, which postulates the existence of law; (ii) need, defined in terms of a legitimate State aim; and (iii) proportionality, which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them. In Apar Ajinkya Firodia (2023), the Court concluded that DNA tests should only be mandated when they are essential and proportionate, not when disputes can be settled through other evidence.
Article 20(3) further provides protection against self-incrimination, though the Supreme Court has held that compelling a person to give forensic evidence like fingerprints, hair, or semen doesn't contravene this provision. The collection of DNA samples in paternity lawsuits, the Court ruled in Rohit Shekhar v. N.D. Tiwari, does not infringe fundamental rights as it remains confidential for the sake of justice.
The Evolution of Judicial Precedents
The Supreme Court's approach to DNA testing has evolved through several landmark judgments. In Bhabani Prasad Jena (2010) and Banarsi Dass (2005), the Court established that judges cannot order genetic tests as a "roving enquiry" and must balance "the interests of the parties". DNA tests should not be ordered if other material evidence exists to prove the case.
In Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993), the Court articulated that Indian jurisprudence inclines towards legitimacy, emphasizing that DNA testing directives should only be issued after thorough consideration of parties' interests, including the child's rights, and upon determination that testing is indispensable. The Court articulated the "test of eminent need," requiring that DNA testing be essential before ordering it.
Ashok Kumar v. Raj Gupta (2021) further refined this approach, requiring judges to examine "proportionality of the legitimate aims" being pursued before ordering genetic tests. In Rathine (2021), the Court articulated that neither privacy nor knowledge is absolute, and the judiciary must balance stigma against necessity.
The Recent CP vs AP (2026) Ruling: A Paradigm Shift
The May 2026 ruling in CP vs AP (2026 INSC 600) brought these arguments together by affirming a trial court's decision for a DNA test. Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh upheld the orders directing a DNA test to determine paternity, stating that the contentious issue could not be resolved with current evidence and required scientific verification. The Court applied the principles of necessity and proportionality, affirming that when paternity is directly contested and no other evidence exists, scientific verification becomes essential.
This ruling represents a significant development in balancing competing rights. The Supreme Court put a child's right to know about his biological father on a higher pedestal compared to a person's right to privacy not to be compelled to undergo a DNA test. The bench adjudicated the tricky issue of whose rights prevail in paternity test battles—the right to privacy of a man not to undergo DNA testing or the right of a child to know about his father.
However, the Court also ruled in January 2025 that an individual does not have a legal right to seek a DNA test on another person to prove paternity, underscoring that such inquiry could lead to "collateral infringement of privacy" and potentially eviscerate a person's reputation. Forcefully undergoing a DNA test would subject an individual's private life to scrutiny from the outside world.
The Devakar Guidelines: Standardizing DNA Evidence Procedures
In Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025), concerning rape, homicide, and theft cases, the Supreme Court established standardized protocols for collection, preservation, and presentation of DNA evidence in criminal matters. A significant set of four procedural regulations ensures integrity, reliability, and prompt processing of DNA evidence.
Key directions include: (1) Adequate Documentation—each DNA specimen needs FIR information, case sections, names of investigating officer, medical officer, and impartial witnesses, guaranteeing traceability; (2) Timely Shipping—investigating officers must deliver DNA samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory within 48 hours after collection, with any delay justified in writing; (3) No Alteration During Storage—packages cannot be opened, changed, or resealed without explicit trial court consent; and (4) Chain of Custody Log—extensive documentation must record each transfer from collection to court disposal, signed by all individuals involved.
The Court directed Directors General of Police of all States to prepare standard formats, ensure training of Investigating Officers through Police Academies, and circulate the judgment to all relevant authorities for compliance.
Section 116 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam: The Legitimacy Presumption
Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, corresponding to Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides that a child born during the continuance of a valid marriage or within 280 days after its dissolution shall be conclusive proof of legitimacy. This creates an irrebuttable presumption based solely on marital status, excluding DNA evidence in many circumstances.
The petitioner in a 2026 challenge argued that Section 116 is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violates fundamental rights including the right to truth, privacy, and the best interests of children. The research highlights the conflict between this presumption and DNA evidence indicating non-paternity, raising concerns about inheritance rights and potential injustice in succession disputes.
The Supreme Court ruled in January 2025 that DNA testing cannot be ordered when Section 112 Presumption stands and paternity is not directly tied to the offence. However, the Court can mandate a DNA test if paternity is directly contested, there is no other evidence available to resolve the matter, and the test aligns with the interests of justice.
Balancing Truth and Rights: The Three-Part Test
The judiciary's approach centers on positioning DNA testing as a final option. The courts must ensure that while science may be infallible, the pursuit of truth is only just when it respects a person's rights. After the Puttaswamy decision, Constitution safeguards bodily autonomy and limits compelled genetic disclosures, yet courts can mandate DNA tests under specific conditions.
The three-part test requires evaluating: (1) whether a compelling prima facie case has been established; (2) whether the test is essential and proportionate; and (3) whether disputes can be settled through other evidence. Neither privacy nor knowledge is absolute—the judiciary must balance stigma against necessity.
Current Challenges and Regulatory Gaps
Despite Supreme Court guidelines, India lacks comprehensive regulations governing DNA profiling eligibility. Though provisions exist in the Code of Criminal Procedure and Indian Evidence Act, they are implicit, leaving judges to approve or refuse DNA testing exclusively. This tends to cause chaos and ambiguity when ensuring justice.
DNA evidence can only serve as supplementary proof and should not be regarded as definitive evidence, particularly in criminal cases. Indian courts are increasingly depending on DNA evidence in both civil and criminal contexts, yet there is currently no comprehensive legal framework governing DNA profiling. For over five years, India has worked to establish legislation on DNA profiling, with the bill pending presentation in Parliament.
The growing reliance on DNA evidence presents significant obstacles to certain legal and fundamental rights, including the right to privacy and right against self-incrimination. Judges occasionally refuse to accept DNA technology-based evidence because it presents significant risks to individual legal rights.
The Need for Legislative Framework
The legitimateness of DNA profiling in India remains dicey, competing between justice and privacy. It's the need of the hour to have reasonable and clear DNA technology laws, and there's a need to amend the existing framework of the justice system. This will strike a balance between constitutional rights and public interest while bringing accountability and transparency to the DNA profiling technique.
Despite DNA profiling's advantages, it still has defects that should be appropriately addressed, including the risk of human error and misinterpretation. DNA evidence safeguards not only the rights of victims but also of those who are innocent, ensuring guilty persons are punished and wrongfully convicted individuals are exonerated.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's framework for DNA evidence represents a careful balance between scientific truth and constitutional rights. By positioning DNA testing as a last resort, the judiciary ensures that while scientific evidence may be reliable, the quest for truth is only just when it honors individual rights. The Court can mandate DNA tests when paternity is directly contested, no other evidence exists, and the test aligns with justice's interests.
The Devakar guidelines standardize procedures and safeguard forensic credibility, while the three-part test of legality, necessity, and proportionality provides constitutional safeguards. However, the absence of a comprehensive legislative framework continues to create ambiguity. Parliament must enact clear DNA technology laws to balance constitutional rights with public interest, ensuring accountability and transparency in DNA profiling while protecting the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21.
The journey from Bhabani Prasad Jena to CP vs AP demonstrates India's evolving jurisprudence on this critical issue. As DNA technology advances, the judiciary must continue refining this balance, ensuring that the pursuit of scientific truth never overrides the fundamental dignity and rights of individuals under the Constitution.
Download Pdf
