The Karnataka High Court has rejected a 44-year-old man’s plea for a DNA test to prove that a couple in their 70s were his parents, ruling that scientific tests cannot be used to conduct a “fishing enquiry” or establish the basic facts of a paternity claim. Stressing the intrusive nature of such procedures, especially against elderly persons, the court held that anyone seeking a DNA test must first demonstrate a strong prima facie case and establish an “eminent need” for it.Justice Vijaykumar A Patil was hearing a petition filed by the man challenging a September 2, 2022 order of a trial court that rejected his application seeking appointment of a court commissioner, preferably a registered medical practitioner, to conduct a DNA test and other relevant tests to ascertain paternity.“Such a direction, having regard to its intrusive nature and its consequences upon the dignity, privacy and legitimacy of the parties concerned, can be ordered only upon the party seeking such an order laying a prima facie case for the same…Hence, if the application is allowed on the material available on record, it would effectively convert the DNA test into an instrument of investigation or a fishing enquiry rather than a measure necessitated in the interests of justice,” the high court said on August 20. It held that a strong prima facie case along with an “eminent need” must be established before such a test can be considered.The dispute goes back to a 2012 case in which the man claimed that the respondents were his parents. When the trial court refused his request for a DNA test in 2022, he challenged that decision before the Karnataka High Court. Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil held that a DNA test could not be ordered when the petitioner had failed to establish the basic factual foundation of his claim. (Image enhanced using AI)Paternity dispute dates back to 2012The petitioner had filed a suit in 2012 before the I Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) at Kolar Gold Fields (KGF), claiming that the respondents were his parents and seeking legal rights as their son.According to his case, he was born to the respondents but was brought up by his grandparents. He later filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking appointment of a commissioner to conduct a DNA test to establish whether respondent number 1 was his biological father.The respondents opposed the plea, arguing that the petitioner had not produced prima facie evidence establishing the alleged relationship. The trial court rejected the application, noting that the respondent number 1 had denied the marriage and that no documents had been produced to establish the relationship between the parties or make out a prima facie case for appointing a commissioner.Story continues below this adSupreme Court on DNA testsThe court cited Supreme Court rulings on DNA testing and the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and noted that DNA testing cannot be ordered as a matter of course and that applications for such testing cannot become a means of conducting a roving inquiry. It also referred to the requirement of a strong prima facie case of “non-access” where a party seeks to displace the statutory presumption under Section 112.The court said judges must consider the consequences of ordering a DNA test, including its impact on privacy, dignity and legitimacy. It also referred to the Supreme Court‘s requirement that courts balance a person’s interest in knowing biological parentage against the privacy, dignity and familial interests of those subjected to the test.Foundational facts not establishedApplying these principles, the high court found that the petitioner had failed to place the foundational material necessary for ordering a DNA test.The court noted that he had not produced evidence establishing the alleged marriage between the respondents. It also observed that the evidence already before the trial court indicated that the petitioner was the son of Narayanappa and Beeramma.Story continues below this ad“In the absence of proof of the very foundational fact of marriage, the petitioner cannot seek to invoke the procedure of DNA testing merely on the basis of an assertion,” the high court said.The court also noted that the petitioner himself relied on having been brought up by his grandparents. Since the grandparents would have had knowledge of the circumstances surrounding his birth, the high court said they were material witnesses. However, neither had been examined before the trial court.The court said such evidence was important when the petitioner was seeking to displace the existing presumption by directly resorting to DNA testing. On the material available, it concluded that the test could not be allowed when the basic factual foundation of the claim had not been established.DNA test can’t become ‘fishing enquiry’The high court said that an “eminent need” does not mean a DNA test should be ordered merely because it would be useful or convenient for determining a biological relationship.Story continues below this ad“The expression ‘eminent need’ cannot be understood to mean that a DNA test would merely be useful or convenient for determining the biological relationship,” the court said. It said that the requirement is that the controversy cannot fairly and effectively be adjudicated on the evidence otherwise available.The court said that the petitioner had neither established the foundational facts of his claim nor rebutted the presumption under Section 112. He had also failed to show why paternity could not be adjudicated on the evidence already before the trial court.