Legal Review and Analysis of R Rajendran vs Kamar Nisha & Ors 2025 INSC 1304

In-Short

Case: R. Rajendran vs Kamar Nisha & Ors. (2025 INSC 1304):The Supreme Court ruled that a DNA test to determine paternity cannot be ordered when a child is born during a valid marriage, as the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act is conclusive. Such a direction requires overcoming stringent legal blockades, including proving non-access and demonstrating an eminent need, without which it violates the right to privacy.

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Name: R. Rajendran vs Kamar Nisha and Others
Citation: 2025 INSC 1304
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Criminal Appeal No.: 1013 of 2021
Judges: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Date of Judgment: November 10, 2025

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment interprets and applies the following legal provisions:

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
  Section 112: Deals with the conclusive presumption of a child's legitimacy if born during a valid marriage.
  Section 114(g) & (h): Pertains to the drawing of adverse inferences.

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
  Sections 417 & 420: Cheating and cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
  Sections 53 & 53A: Govern the examination of an accused by a medical practitioner at the request of a police officer, including DNA profiling.

• The Constitution of India:
  Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty, encompassing the right to privacy and bodily integrity.

• Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act
  Section 4(1): Penalizes harassment of women.

3. Basic Judgment Details

This criminal appeal was filed by Dr. R. Rajendran challenging the order of the Madras High Court which directed him to undergo a DNA test. The case originated from an FIR lodged by Respondent No.1, Kamar Nisha, alleging that the appellant had a physical relationship with her under false promises, resulting in the birth of a child, and had subsequently cheated and harassed her. The investigation stalled, leading to writ petitions seeking a transfer of investigation and a DNA test to establish paternity. The High Court allowed the DNA test, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

4. Core Principle and Analysis of the Judgment

The Main Issue: Whether the High Court was justified in directing the appellant to undergo DNA testing to determine the paternity of a child born to the complainant during the subsistence of her valid marriage with another man.

Supreme Court's Reasoning and In-depth Analysis:

The Supreme Court's judgment is a detailed treatise on the interplay between the statutory presumption of legitimacy, the right to privacy, and the permissibility of DNA tests in criminal proceedings. The core of the judgment revolves around establishing stringent safeguards before a DNA test can be ordered.

• The Primacy of the Presumption of Legitimacy (Section 112, Evidence Act): The Court began its analysis by emphasizing the sanctity of Section 112 of the Evidence Act. This provision creates a conclusive presumption that a child born during a valid marriage is the legitimate child of the husband. The Court clarified that this presumption can be rebutted only by proving "non-access" between the spouses during the relevant period of conception. "Non-access" means the impossibility of sexual intercourse, not merely its absence or the wife's infidelity. The burden of proving non-access is heavy and requires strong, cogent, and unambiguous evidence. In this case, the Court found that the respondent had made no specific pleading of non-access between herself and her husband, Abdul Latheef. The child was born during a valid marriage, and official documents consistently named Abdul Latheef as the father. Therefore, the presumption of legitimacy remained fully operative and unrebutted.

• Stringent Parameters for Directing a DNA Test: The Court reiterated the principles from landmark cases like Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993) and Bhabani Prasad Jena vs. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women (2010). It held that a DNA test cannot be ordered as a matter of routine or for a "roving inquiry." It is an "eminent need" test. The Court must be satisfied that the test is absolutely essential for a just decision and that there is a strong prima facie case. The Court further relied on Ivan Rathinam vs. Milan Joseph (2025), which laid down the "twin blockades" to ordering a DNA test:
  Insufficiency of Evidence: The existing evidence must be insufficient to come to a finding without the test.
  Balance of Interests: The court must be satisfied that ordering the test is in the best interests of all parties and will not cause undue harm.
  The Supreme Court found that both blockades were not crossed in this case. The existing evidence (the unrebutted presumption under Section 112) was sufficient, and the balance of interests weighed against the test.

• The Fundamental Right to Privacy and Bodily Integrity: The Court held that forcibly subjecting an individual to a DNA test constitutes a grave intrusion upon the right to privacy and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Citing K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), it applied the three-fold test of legality, legitimate state aim, and proportionality. It found no legitimate aim that necessitated this intrusive procedure, as the criminal allegations of cheating and harassment could be investigated without delving into paternity. The invasion of the appellant's and the now-major child's privacy was deemed grossly disproportionate to any potential investigative benefit.

• Paternity as a Collateral Issue in Criminal Charges: The Court made a crucial distinction. The gravamen of the FIR was cheating and harassment, not the determination of paternity. Establishing paternity was collateral to the main offences alleged. The Court, relying on Inayath Ali vs. State of Telangana (2024), held that a DNA test cannot be directed when the paternity of a child is not a direct issue in the case and is merely a collateral factor. The Court also clarified that the provisions of Sections 53 and 53A of the CrPC could not be invoked in this case as there was no direct nexus between the DNA test and the commission of the alleged offences of cheating.

• No Adverse Inference at the Threshold: The Court rejected the respondent's argument that an adverse inference should be drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against the appellant for refusing the test. It held that the stage for drawing an adverse inference arises only after a court has validly ordered a DNA test and the party refuses. In this case, the Court was still at the preliminary stage of deciding whether such a test should be ordered at all.

Conclusion of the Court on the Core Issue: The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in directing the DNA test. The statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act remained intact, the respondent failed to establish the "eminent need" for the test, and the direction violated the fundamental right to privacy of the appellant and the child.

5. Final Outcome

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and passed the following directions:

1. The impugned judgment dated 10.05.2017 passed by the High Court of Madras was set aside.

2. The direction for the appellant to undergo DNA testing was quashed.

6. MCQs Based on the Judgment

1. In R. Rajendran vs. Kamar Nisha (2025 INSC 1304), the Supreme Court set aside the DNA test direction primarily because?
a) The DNA test technology was deemed unreliable.
b) The appellant had already admitted to being the biological father.
c) The conclusive presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act was not rebutted by proving non-access.
d) The High Court did not have the jurisdiction to order a DNA test.

2. According to the Supreme Court's judgment in R. Rajendran, which of the following is a necessary condition, or "blockade," that must be overcome before a DNA test can be ordered?
a) The consent of the investigating officer must be obtained.
b) The party requesting the test must waive their own right to privacy.
c) The existing evidence must be insufficient to arrive at a finding, and the test must serve the best interests of all parties without causing undue harm.
d) The child in question must be a minor.