Right to Privacy - The Legal Chamber

Right to Privacy Prevails: Supreme Court Rejects Forced DNA Test in Paternity Dispute

29Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Right to Privacy Prevails: Supreme Court Rejects Forced DNA Test in Paternity Dispute

In this Supreme Court judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that a DNA test cannot be ordered as a matter of routine. It emphasized that the conclusive presumption of a child's legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act can only be displaced by proving "non-access." Absent such proof and a direct nexus to the alleged offence, forced testing violates the right to privacy and bodily autonomy. Facts Of The Case: Respondent No. 1, Kamar Nisha, was married to Abdul Latheef in 2001. Latheef, suffering from a skin ailment, was successfully treated by the appellant, Dr. R. Rajendran. Latheef confided in the doctor about his lack of progeny, leading to a request for medical assistance for his wife. Following this, an extramarital relationship developed between the appellant and...

Supreme Court Protects Religious Freedom: Quashes Multiple UP Conversion FIRs

This Supreme Court judgment quashed multiple FIRs under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, holding that the unamended Section 4 restricted lodging of complaints only to aggrieved persons or their relatives. The Court found the subsequent FIRs were impermissible as they pertained to the same incident, violated the principle against multiplicity of proceedings, and were an abuse of process. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a batch of petitions and appeals concerning six FIRs registered under the Indian Penal Code and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The primary FIR (No. 224/2022) was lodged on 15.04.2022 at the instance of Himanshu Dixit, a Vice President of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, alleging mass reli...

Supreme Court Allows Older Couples to Continue Surrogacy if Embryos Frozen Before 2022

The Supreme Court held that the age restrictions under Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, do not apply retrospectively. Intending couples who had commenced the surrogacy process—specifically by creating and freezing embryos—before the Act's enforcement retain their vested right to continue the procedure, irrespective of subsequently exceeding the statutory age limits. Facts Of The Case: The case consolidates three petitions concerning age restrictions for intending couples under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. In the first, a couple married in 2019 began IVF treatment in 2020 but were advised to use surrogacy due to the wife’s medical history. Their embryos were frozen in January 2021, but the process was stalled by the pandemic before the Act, with its a...