Roving Inquiry - 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...

Merely Buying Property Doesn’t Make You an Accused: Supreme Court Reiterates Legal Principle

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against the accused appellant, holding that no prima facie case was established under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the IPC. The Court ruled that mere subsequent purchase of property from a co-accused, without allegation of inducement or involvement in the initial fraudulent transaction, does not attract criminal liability for cheating or criminal breach of trust. Facts Of The Case: The case originates from an FIR filed by Ms. Amutha in October 2022 against Gunasekaran (Accused No. 1) for offences under Section 420 of the IPC. She alleged that in 2015, Gunasekaran fraudulently represented himself as the owner of a vacant plot, inducing her into an unregistered sale agreement for ₹1.64 crore. She paid substantial sums totaling ₹92 lakhs ...

Natural Justice Upheld: Supreme Court Says Parties Must Be Heard on Adverse Directions

The Supreme Court ruled that a writ court cannot travel beyond the reliefs sought in the petition and pass adverse orders that render a petitioner worse off. Such directions, issued without notice, violate principles of natural justice. A litigant cannot be penalized for approaching the court, as it would seriously impact access to justice. Facts Of The Case: The case involved the Cochin Devaswom Board and the Chinmaya Mission Trust. The Trust had been allotted land in 1974 near the Vadakkunnathan Temple in Thrissur to build a hall for marriages and cultural activities, for an annual license fee of Rs. 101. After subsequent allotments, the total fee was fixed at Rs. 227.25 per annum. In 2014, the Board unilaterally enhanced this fee to Rs. 1,50,000 per annum. The Trust challenged this dr...