October 12, 2026 05:16 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Delhi Police de-notifies Jantar Mantar as protest site amid CJP stir over Gyanesh Kumar | 'Gyanesh Kumar will not escape': Rahul Gandhi issues warning amid voting rights row | 'Supreme Court doors open for all': CJI Surya Kant breaks silence on refusing to meet INDIA bloc over Gyanesh Kumar row | 'Undeclared Emer-GenZ': Shashi Tharoor slams Delhi curbs over CJP protests, calls internet shutdown 'most regressive' | ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’, ‘Inquilab Zindabad’: CJP leader Abhijeet Dipke dares Delhi Police to arrest him, says ‘We are not afraid’ | CJP protest crackdown? Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka detained from inside flight | Dhruv Rathee detained ahead of CJP protests against CEC Gyanesh Kumar as Delhi goes on high alert | ‘Restriction, not complete closure’: Supreme Court questions Delhi shutdown ahead of CJP protest | 'Unwarranted': India hits back at JD Vance over ‘indentured servants’ remark amid US Green Card crackdown | US targets Microsoft, Infosys, Tata in green card crackdown
Supreme Court blocks DNA test in landmark ruling citing right to privacy. Photo courtesy: Wikimedia Commons

Man seeks to prove biological father alleging birth out of extramarital affair, SC blocks DNA test in landmark ruling

| @indiablooms | Jan 28, 2025, at 09:41 pm

New Delhi/IBNS: In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court Tuesday struck a balance between the right to know the biological father and the right to privacy in a landmark ruling in a two-decades-old case.

The case involves a 23-year-old man seeking to establish his biological father's identity through a DNA test.

The petitioner claimed his birth was a result of his mother’s extramarital affair and sought to prove paternity to claim financial maintenance for mounting medical expenses.

The bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, heard arguments from both sides.

The petitioner stated he had undergone multiple surgeries due to severe health issues and faced financial hardship alongside his mother in meeting treatment costs.

He pleaded that identifying his biological father would allow him to secure much-needed support.

The alleged biological father, however, opposed the DNA test on privacy grounds, stating that such an action would violate his personal rights.

The case thus presented a conflict between the petitioner’s right to know his origins and the respondent’s right to privacy.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the need to balance these competing rights carefully. While acknowledging the petitioner’s situation, the court also underlined the importance of safeguarding individual privacy.

The judgment reflects the judiciary’s attempt to navigate complex personal and legal issues within the framework of constitutional rights.

 

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.