No one can be forced by Courts to undergo a DNA test, the Apex Court said on Friday, noting that it not only impinges on an individual’s privacy but can also lead to major societal repercussions for the person.
The order came on a plea filed by a man who was directed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana to undergo a DNA test to prove his claim for a share in the property of his biological parents.
His claim was disputed by the couple’s 3 daughters, who denied that the man was their brother, and said that he wasn't the son of their parents. The women first demanded a DNA test of the man in a Court in Kalka, and moved the HC after the Trial Judge declined to grant their request.
When a DNA test was allowed by the high court in March 2019, the petitioner Ashok Kumar approached the Supreme Court.
While deciding the appeal, a bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy said, “In circumstances where other evidence is available to prove or dispute the relationship, the court should ordinarily refrain from ordering blood tests. This is because such tests impinge upon the right of privacy of an individual and could also have major societal repercussions.”
Setting aside the High Court order, it added, “When the plaintiff is unwilling to subject himself to the DNA test, forcing him to undergo one would impinge on his personal liberty and his right to privacy. Seen from this perspective, the impugned judgment merits interference and is set aside.”
In its order, the Punjab & Haryana HC held in 2019 that a DNA test is a “double-edged sword”, and since Kumar was so sure about his parentage, there was no reason for him to shy away or shirk from taking it.
However, Kumar refused to undergo the test and said he was willing to defend his suit on documentary evidence.
“The DNA test is directed in civil cases only in exceptional circumstances as a matter of last resort. Its evidentiary value is considered along with the entire circumstances of the case. A person can choose not to undergo the DNA test. In such cases, the courts can draw an adverse inference against the party for refusing the test. But by this judgment, the court has examined the DNA test in the light of right to privacy. It will now be difficult for courts below to insist upon DNA test,” SC Lawyer Anirudh Sharma said.
Source Link
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments