Right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty and is inherently protected under Article 21 of the constitution. Explain. In this reference discuss the law relating to D.N.A. testing of child in the womb to establish its paternity.
Subtopic: Judiciary · Right to privacy and DNA testing
How to structure your answer
Written within the word limit
288 words · target 250 words · 14 min
The right to privacy, though not expressly enumerated, is intrinsic to the dignity, life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
Privacy under Article 21
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that privacy is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 and Part III. It protects bodily and mental integrity, informational privacy and decisional autonomy, and can be restricted only by a just, fair and reasonable law meeting the tests of legality, legitimate aim and proportionality.
DNA testing of a child to establish paternity
Compelled DNA testing directly implicates bodily autonomy and informational privacy - of the mother whose body is involved and of the child, whose legitimacy and identity are at stake.
- Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) raises a strong presumption that a child born during a valid marriage is legitimate, rebuttable only by proof of non-access.
- Courts have consistently held that DNA tests cannot be ordered routinely. In Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993) and Bhabani Prasad Jena, the Court laid down that there must be an 'eminent need' and a strong prima facie case, balancing the truth against the child's dignity.
- In Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023), the Court emphasised that children should not be made pawns; their right not to have legitimacy questioned and their privacy under Article 21 must be protected.
Prenatal testing
DNA testing of a child in the womb raises added concerns of the mother's bodily integrity and health, and is permitted, if at all, only in exceptional circumstances with consent and strong justification.
Thus privacy demands that paternity DNA tests remain the exception, ordered only on compelling need and proportionality.
What an examiner expects to see
- Privacy is intrinsic to dignity and personal liberty under Article 21, though not expressly listed.
- Puttaswamy (2017), nine-judge Bench: privacy is a fundamental right; restriction needs legality, legitimate aim, proportionality.
- Section 112 Evidence Act (now Section 116 BSA 2023) presumes legitimacy of a child born in a valid marriage, rebuttable only by non-access.
- Courts require an 'eminent need' and strong prima facie case before ordering DNA tests.
- Goutam Kundu (1993) and Bhabani Prasad Jena set the balancing standard.
- Aparna Ajinkya Firodia (2023) protected the child's dignity and privacy against routine DNA testing.
- Prenatal DNA testing adds concerns of the mother's bodily integrity; allowed only exceptionally with strong justification.
Concrete cases, schemes and judgments
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) - privacy as a fundamental right
- Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993) - no routine DNA testing
- Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023) - child's dignity and privacy
- Section 112, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 116, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023)