Overview
- A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M Pancholi overturned an order compelling a Tamil Nadu doctor to provide samples in a paternity‑linked criminal investigation.
- The Court said any direction for DNA profiling must show a direct, demonstrable nexus to the offences under probe, noting that cheating and harassment allegations did not hinge on paternity.
- The judgment reaffirmed Section 112’s conclusive presumption of legitimacy, citing the absence of proof of non‑access and official records listing the complainant’s husband as the father.
- Citing Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, the Court required a two‑step threshold—evidentiary insufficiency and a positive balance‑of‑interests finding—before considering DNA testing.
- Compelled DNA testing was deemed a grave privacy intrusion that must meet legality, a legitimate state aim, and proportionality, and refusal cannot invite adverse inference without a prior lawful order.