A DNA test may be directed where paternity is the central issue in the suit, no other evidence can conclusively determine the question, and the balance of interests favours discovering the truth over the asserted privacy interest of the alleged father.

on

Facts

The appellant, Chaturbhuj Pradhan (CP), challenged concurrent orders of the Trial Court and the High Court directing him to undergo a DNA test to determine whether the first respondent, Amar Pradhan, was his biological son. Amar claimed that he was born on 10 September 1999 from a consensual relationship between his mother and CP in January 1999. CP consistently denied paternity and relied upon his acquittal in a criminal case under S.376 IPC instituted by Amar’s mother. Earlier maintenance proceedings and related litigation had not conclusively established the relationship. After attaining majority, Amar instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration that he was CP’s son and consequently entitled to a one-third share in CP’s property. The Trial Court ordered a DNA test, and the High Court affirmed the order.

Issues Framed

Whether the courts below were justified in directing a DNA test to determine Amar’s paternity, despite CP’s objection based on privacy, absence of compulsion, and plea of res judicata.

Court’s Reasoning

(a) Governing Principles on DNA Testing

The Court reviewed Goutam Kundu v. State of W.B., Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy, Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, and Nikhat Parveen v. Rafique. It reiterated that DNA tests cannot be ordered routinely and must be directed only where paternity is directly in issue, other evidence is insufficient, and the interests of justice require scientific determination. (Paras 5–6)

(b) Paternity Directly in Issue

The Court held that Amar’s civil suit was specifically instituted to establish that he was CP’s son and thereby entitled to inheritance rights. Therefore, paternity was not a collateral issue but the central question in the litigation. (Para 6.2)

(c) Absence of Alternative Evidence

The Court noted that CP had consistently denied paternity and that there was no other evidence capable of providing a categorical answer. It was also not the case that Amar’s mother had any other intimate relationship during the relevant period. Consequently, the controversy could not be effectively resolved without scientific evidence. (Para 6.1)

(d) Res Judicata and Earlier Proceedings

The Court rejected the plea of res judicata. Earlier observations regarding failure to establish the relationship had arisen in maintenance proceedings and not after a full-fledged trial on the issue of paternity. The present civil suit was instituted specifically to determine that question. (Para 6.2–6.3)

(e) Balancing Privacy and the Search for Truth

The Court balanced CP’s privacy interests against Amar’s right to obtain closure regarding his parentage. It observed that Amar had lived throughout his life amidst conflicting assertions regarding his paternity and might be deprived of legal rights if the issue remained unresolved. In the circumstances, the balance of interests clearly favoured Amar. (Para 6.3–7)

Held

The Supreme Court upheld the orders directing the DNA test and dismissed the appeal. It directed the Trial Court to fix a date for conducting the DNA test and thereafter proceed with the pending civil suit in accordance with law. (Para 7)

Ratio

A DNA test may be ordered when paternity is the principal issue in the proceedings, no other evidence can conclusively resolve the controversy, and a balancing of interests demonstrates that determining the truth outweighs the privacy objection of the alleged parent. 

Case Details

Citation: 2026 INSC 600
Decided on: 29 May 2026
Case Title: Chaturbhuj Pradhan v. Amar Pradhan & Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Sanjay Karol, J.; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.

Key Provisions: S.112 IEA; S.114 IEA; S.125 CrPC.