This appeal resulted from a dowry harassment case in which the plaintiff had filed a first information report under Sections 498A, 323, and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against her husband and his brother. The trial court had directed the appellants and the children to “give blood samples to a specified hospital for obtaining an expert opinion on DNA fingerprint test”.
The appellants invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh seeking invalidation of the said Order. The revisional application, however, was dismissed. The High Court held that such DNA fingerprint test was permitted under Sections 53, 53A and 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. It was observed in the judgment of the High Court, relying on several authorities, that it does not tantamount to testimonial compulsion. It was also held by the High Court that in the event the directions were not complied with, the Court had to draw an adverse inference. The order of the Trial Court was, thus, upheld.
ISSUES RAISED: –
Whether directing a DNA test was violative of Right to Privacy.
Contention: –
The Respondent no.2 contended that this case relates to Dowry Harassment and that Appellant no.1 and 2 were liable for cruelty, causing hurt and outraging her modesty. The Respondent no.2 contented that she was forced to cohabit and develop a physical relationship with Appellant no.1 resulting in 2 minor daughters born out of the wedlock. On the other hand, the appellants claimed protection of S.112 rejecting the contentions of Respondent no. 2 claiming to be false and frivolous, denying the involvement of dowry and pleading innocence before the Trial Court and the Hon’ble High Court.
Rationale:-
In the case of Ashok Kumar v. Raj Gupta and Ors decided by a Coordinate Bench, sparing use of the DNA fingerprint test was opined. This was a suit for declaration of ownership of certain property and the defendants had raised the plea that the plaintiff was not the son of the original owner thereof, from whom he claimed to have derived the title. In that case also, plea was made for conducting a DNA test.
Moreover, the S.C bench stated that merely because the provisions of the C.R.P.C,1973 namely- S.53, 53A, 54 allow DNA testing, it does not empower the Trial Court and High Court to order DNA testing thereby infringing one’s privacy. The Supreme Court also added that the application of Respondent 2 for DNA testing was allowed by both the Courts mechanically on the premise that it was permissible under law referring to the case of Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy.
The Court also emphasised on the fact that the case strays away from the main contention of the parties i.e whether the offences mentioned in the afore mentioned case is true or not and not merely on the basis of paternity test of children. It contends that the lower Courts ignores the needs and requirements of the children not taking into consideration potential future land settlement cases which may arise out of such a test.
Judgement: –
The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath, made the following observations: –
First, neither were the children whose blood samples were directed to be taken parties to the proceeding nor were their status required to be examined in the complaint. The Court observed that this raised doubt on “their legitimacy of being borne to legally wedded parents” and such directions if carried out, had the potential of “exposing them to inheritance-related complication”. It was also noted that Section 112 of the Evidence Act, of 1872 gave a protective cover from allegations of this nature.
Second, the paternity of the children was not in question in the proceedings. The Court observed that the substance of the question was whether the offenses under the aforesaid provisions had been committed which relates to Dowry Harassment and the paternity of the two children was only parallel to the criminal allegations filed by the petitioner.
The Supreme Court reiterates in its judgement that conducting a DNA test to identify paternity is violative of Right to Privacy within the ambit of Article 21 setting aside the decision of the Trial Court and High Court of Telangana.
Defects of Law: –
As according to Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, it states that “The fact that any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten”. In the present case, Respondent no.2 – the wife files a dowry harassment case against her husband and his brother under sections 498A, 323, and 354 and other ancillary provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
She contended that she was married to Appellant no.2 (her husband) but was forced to cohabit with her brother-in-law and have a physical relationship with him. Due to this, 2 minor daughters were born which raised the question of paternity of the children considering her marriage and forced relationship between both the appellants. The lower courts however did not ascertain whether the offences mentioned aforehand were true or not with regards to the Dowry harassment case but leaned more towards the DNA testing of the accused based on written request of the wife. The Trial Court had accordingly granted the request thereby ordering DNA finger testing of both husband and his brother to ascertain the paternal relationship with the 2 daughters. On appealing the same, the High Court had reiterated the order passed by the Trial Court stating that sections 53, 53A and 54 of the CRPC, 1973 allow such medical examination and thus were ordered to do so.
By exercising Special Leave petition, the Appellants had approached the Supreme Court with the request of setting aside the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana. It was only after looking at the findings of the case, the Supreme Court held that ordering the DNA test was violative of Right to Privacy as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution along with emphasising the importance of children’s wellbeing should such testing be permitted keeping in mind future interests.
Inference: –
- The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of privacy rights while considering the use of DNA testing. The court highlighted that DNA tests can encroach upon an individual’s right to privacy, and compelling such tests must be proportionate and justified.
- The court underlined Section 112 of the Evidence Act, which safeguards children’s legitimacy born within the duration of a valid marriage. Ordering DNA tests involving children who are not parties to the proceedings might expose them to inheritance-related complications.
- The judgment highlighted that determining the paternity of the children was not directly linked to the allegations under Sections 498A, 323, 354, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code made by the complainant against her husband and brother-in-law.
- The court criticized the Trial Court and Revisional Court for mechanically allowing the DNA test without adequately considering the relevance and potential impact on the children’s rights and the essence of the criminal case.
- The Court took reference of Ashok Kumar v. Raj Gupta and Ors , along with Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy emphasizing the need for proportionality in compelling individuals to undergo DNA testing and highlighting the right to privacy as declared in the K.S. Puttaswamy case.
- Considering the collateral nature of the issue of paternity, the court concluded that the case could be adjudicated without relying on the DNA test report. As such, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of both the High Court and the Trial Court.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Inayath Ali & Anr. Vs State of Telangana & Anr. sets a significant precedent regarding the use of DNA tests in criminal cases, particularly when the paternity of children is not directly linked to the criminal allegations. The judgment underscores the need for judicial discretion, the protection of individual rights, and the careful consideration of privacy concerns, especially concerning minors who are not directly involved in legal proceedings. This judgment reaffirms the courts’ responsibility to balance legal procedures with the protection of individuals’ rights, ensuring fair and just outcomes in criminal cases while upholding constitutional guarantees of Right to Privacy and Dignity.
NAME : SHAAN VELLANKI
COLLEGE: SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL