DNA Test Not Mandatory: Supreme Court Protects Right to Privacy in Property Dispute: Ashok Kumar vs. Raj Gupta (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 1 October 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 653

Judges: R. Subhash Reddy, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. (authored the judgment)

Can a person be forced to undergo a DNA test to prove their claim in a property dispute? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. Raj Gupta, clarifying the circumstances under which a court can order a DNA test. The court emphasized the importance of individual privacy and the need for a strong prima facie case before ordering such tests.

Case Background

The case involves a property dispute where Ashok Kumar claimed to be the son of late Trilok Chand Gupta and Sona Devi, seeking a share in their property. The couple’s three daughters, the defendants, denied Ashok Kumar’s claim, asserting he was not their brother and that they had exclusive rights to the property based on a Will by their mother, Sona Devi.

Ashok Kumar filed a civil suit (CS No. 53/2013) seeking declaration of ownership of the property left behind by Trilok Chand Gupta and Sona Devi. The defendants contested his claim, denying any biological link between Ashok Kumar and their parents.

During the proceedings, after the plaintiff (Ashok Kumar) had presented his evidence, the defendants applied to the court for a DNA test to establish whether Ashok Kumar was indeed related to their parents. Ashok Kumar opposed this, stating that there was already sufficient evidence to prove his parentage. He presented affidavits where the defendants had admitted that he was the son of their parents.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed the defendants’ application for a DNA test, stating that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff, Ashok Kumar, to prove his relationship to the deceased. The court also noted that it could not force the plaintiff to provide a DNA sample.

The defendants then appealed to the High Court, which overturned the Trial Court’s decision. The High Court held that a DNA test was crucial to determine the relationship and that the plaintiff should not avoid it.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s order, Ashok Kumar appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions and principles:

• Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section establishes a presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage. The court quoted the maxim *“pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant”* (he is the father whom the marriage indicates).
• Right to Privacy: The Court referred to the judgment in *K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India*, where the right to privacy was declared a constitutionally protected right.

Arguments

Plaintiff (Ashok Kumar)’s Arguments:

• The plaintiff argued that he had already presented sufficient evidence to prove his relationship with the deceased, including sworn affidavits and other documents.
• He contended that the defendants’ application for a DNA test was an abuse of the legal process, made only after the plaintiff had closed his evidence.
• The plaintiff argued that he cannot be forced to give a DNA sample.

Defendants (Raj Gupta & Ors.)’ Arguments:

• The defendants argued that a DNA test was the most accurate way to determine the biological relationship between the plaintiff and their parents.
• They contended that since the plaintiff was claiming to be the son of their parents, he should not shy away from a DNA test.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether, in a declaratory suit where ownership over coparcenary property is claimed, the plaintiff, against his wishes, can be subjected to the DNA test.
2. Whether the plaintiff, without subjecting himself to a DNA test, is entitled to establish his right over the property in question, through other material evidence.
3. Whether, in the absence of consent, a party can be forced to provide a sample for a DNA test.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Banarsi Dass v. Teeku Dutta [2005(4) SCC 449]* to emphasize that DNA tests should not be ordered routinely.
• The Court followed the principles laid down in Bhabani Prasad Jena vs. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women & Anr. [(2010) 8 SCC 633]*, stating that a DNA test should be ordered only when there is a strong prima facie case and that the court has to balance the interests of the parties.
• The Court distinguished the facts in Dipanwita Roy vs. Ronobroto Roy [(2015) 1 SCC 365]* from the present case, where the DNA test was crucial for the husband to prove his assertion.
• The Court reiterated the principle in Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram [2001(5) SCC 311]* that the presumption of legitimacy can only be displaced by strong evidence.
• The Court considered the right to privacy as established in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India [2019 (1) SCC 1]* and held that forcing a party to undergo a DNA test would impinge on their right to privacy.
• The Court also considered the principle in Sharda vs. Dharmpal [2003(4) SCC 493]* that an adverse inference can be drawn if a party refuses a medical examination ordered by the court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to balance the quest for truth with the protection of individual rights, particularly the right to privacy. The Court emphasized that DNA tests should not be ordered routinely and that there must be a strong prima facie case before ordering such tests. The Court also considered the social and cultural implications of declaring a person a bastard, which could have severe consequences.

The Court reasoned that forcing the plaintiff to undergo a DNA test would impinge on his personal liberty and right to privacy. The Court also noted that the plaintiff had already presented other evidence to support his claim and that the defendants’ application was an attempt to compel the plaintiff to prove their case.

The Court also noted that the timing of the application was also relevant, as it was made after the plaintiff had already presented his evidence. The court held that the plaintiff cannot be compelled to adduce further evidence to support the defendants’ case.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “In matters of this kind the court must have regard to Section 112 of the Evidence Act.”
• “There is no conflict in the two decisions of this Court, namely, Goutam Kundu and Sharda.”
• “if despite an order passed by the court, a person refuses to submit himself to such medical examination, a strong case for drawing an adverse inference”

There was no minority opinion in the case. The judgment was authored by Justice Hrishikesh Roy.

Key Takeaways

• DNA tests should not be ordered routinely in civil cases.
• Courts must consider the right to privacy and the need for a strong prima facie case before ordering a DNA test.
• A party cannot be forced to undergo a DNA test if they are unwilling.
• Other evidence can be used to prove lineage in property disputes.
• Refusal to undergo a DNA test may lead to an adverse inference, but the case will be decided on the overall evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the Trial Court’s order, allowing the suit to proceed without the DNA test.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court reiterated that DNA tests should not be ordered routinely in civil cases and that the right to privacy is a constitutionally protected right. The Court also clarified that a party cannot be forced to undergo a DNA test if they are unwilling and that other evidence can be used to prove lineage in property disputes. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the courts should not order DNA test as a matter of routine and the right to privacy of an individual has to be protected.

Conclusion

In the case of Ashok Kumar vs. Raj Gupta, the Supreme Court has upheld the right to privacy and has clarified that DNA tests should not be ordered routinely in civil cases, especially when other evidence is available. The judgment emphasizes the need for a strong prima facie case before ordering such tests and protects individuals from being forced to undergo DNA tests against their will.