The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered in February 2023 in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, held that children have a right not to have their legitimacy questioned frivolously, and that this right is part of their privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court ruled that DNA tests cannot be ordered as a matter of routine in matrimonial disputes and must be directed only when there is a strong prima facie case necessitating such an intrusive examination.
Background
The matter arose from a matrimonial dispute in which the husband sought a DNA test to challenge the paternity of the child born during the subsistence of the marriage. Under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a child born during a valid marriage is conclusively presumed to be legitimate. This statutory presumption can only be rebutted by evidence showing that the parties had no access to each other at or about the time when the child could have been begotten. Indian courts have consistently grappled with the tension between advancing forensic science (DNA testing) and the statutory presumption of legitimacy, with divergent approaches across High Courts on when DNA tests should be ordered.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court laid down the following principles:
Privacy right of children: The Court held that children have a right under Article 21 not to have their legitimacy subjected to frivolous challenges. This right is an aspect of their privacy, dignity, and reputation, which the constitutional framework protects.
DNA tests not routine: Courts should not order DNA tests as a matter of course in matrimonial proceedings merely because a party requests it. Such tests are intrusive and their results can have devastating consequences for the child's social standing and psychological well-being.
Strong prima facie case required: A DNA test may be directed only when the party seeking it establishes a strong prima facie case that raises a genuine doubt about paternity. Mere allegations without supporting material are insufficient.
Section 112 presumption upheld: The Court reaffirmed the strength of the conclusive presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act. Access between spouses during the relevant period sustains the presumption, and a DNA test request cannot be used as a fishing expedition to challenge it.
Implications for Practitioners
Family law practitioners must take careful note of this ruling when advising clients in matrimonial disputes involving paternity challenges. The judgment significantly raises the threshold for obtaining a court-ordered DNA test, requiring specific factual allegations beyond general assertions of infidelity.
For lawyers representing the interests of children — either directly or through guardians ad litem — this judgment provides a constitutional shield against paternity challenges that could damage the child's social and emotional welfare. Practitioners should invoke Article 21 privacy protections proactively in such matters.
The ruling also has implications for custody and maintenance proceedings where paternity is contested. Courts will now need to apply the "strong prima facie case" standard before entertaining DNA test applications, which may reduce the weaponisation of paternity challenges in contentious matrimonial litigation.
Practitioners should note that the judgment does not foreclose DNA testing entirely — it calibrates the threshold, ensuring that the tool is used in genuinely contested cases rather than as a tactical device in matrimonial warfare.