Section 112 of the erstwhile Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, establish a strong presumption of legitimacy. A child born during a valid marriage is legally presumed to be the husband’s child. To challenge this, the husband must prove ‘non-access’ (that it was physically impossible for him to have cohabited with the wife during the time of conception).

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India laid down strict guidelines for ordering blood or DNA tests. The Court held that DNA tests cannot be ordered as a matter of routine. The party asking for the test must establish a strong prima facie case showing ‘non-access’ to rebut the presumption of legitimacy.

In this case, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed that DNA tests should not be used as a shortcut to bypass standard proof. The Court held that Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act aims to prevent children from being stigmatized, and a DNA test cannot be ordered unless there is a very strong case of non-access.

In this high-profile paternity suit, Rohit Shekhar sought to establish that veteran politician N.D. Tiwari was his biological father. Mr. Tiwari refused to give blood samples, claiming it violated his right to privacy. The Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court ruled that a person cannot be physically forced to give a sample, but if they refuse, the court can draw an adverse inference. Mr. Tiwari eventually took the test, which confirmed Rohit Shekhar was his biological son.

In Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik (2014), the Supreme Court ruled that when there is a direct conflict between a legal presumption of legitimacy (legal fiction) and a reliable DNA test (scientific proof), scientific truth must prevail, as interest of justice outweighs legal presumptions. In Dipanwita Roy (2014), the Court clarified that while a person cannot be forced to undergo a DNA test, if they refuse, the court can draw an ‘adverse inference’ (assume the allegation against them is true) to resolve the dispute.

In August 2017, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India unanimously ruled that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment established that any state action invading privacy must satisfy a threefold test: legality, legitimate state aim, and proportionality.

In this 2023 judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that a spouse cannot demand a DNA paternity test routinely to prove infidelity. The Court held that DNA tests must be ordered as a last resort only when they are necessary, proportionate, and when the dispute cannot be resolved using other documentary or oral evidence.

These 2014 judgments established that scientific evidence (like DNA tests) takes precedence over the legal presumption of legitimacy if they contradict each other. The Court held that while the presumption under Section 112 is strong, it is rebuttable by accurate DNA proof.

In this 2025 case, the Supreme Court ruled that DNA tests cannot be ordered in collusive suits, which are brought by parties working together secretly for an ulterior motive (like denying a child’s legitimacy for property). The Court emphasized that a child has a right to identity and dignity, which must be protected from vexatious testing.

In this recent 2026 judgment, the Supreme Court of India rejected a husband’s request for a DNA paternity test, noting that he failed to establish a prima facie case of non-access to his wife. The Court reaffirmed that paternity tests cannot be ordered on mere suspicions or to gather evidence for divorce proceedings.