The Supreme Court's post-Puttaswamy jurisprudence on DNA paternity testing reflects an unresolved tension between the right to know one's identity and the right to bodily autonomy. Critically examine.

Q. The Supreme Court's post-Puttaswamy jurisprudence on DNA paternity testing reflects an unresolved tension between the right to know one's identity and the right to bodily autonomy. Critically examine. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) read privacy and bodily integrity into Article 21 [1]. The same Article also shelters a person's right to know their biological origins. Paternity litigation is where the two collide, and the Court's answers have been calibrated rather than conclusive.

The competing claims - Bodily autonomy: compelled sampling is a bodily intrusion; post-Puttaswamy the Court has held DNA tests cannot be ordered routinely [1]. - Statutory shield: Section 112, Evidence Act, 1872 — now Section 116, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — makes birth in a valid marriage conclusive proof of legitimacy unless non-access is shown, protecting children from the stigma of illegitimacy [2]. - Right to identity: parentage determines maintenance, succession and selfhood, so the child's claim is itself an Article 21 interest — the child, too, has a privacy stake [3].

Why the tension appears unresolved - In Aparna Ajinkya Firodia (2023) a DNA report alone was held incapable of displacing the presumption [3]; in Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025) the Court held legitimacy under Section 112 settles paternity until non-access is proved, setting aside a test order [4]. - In Chaturbhuj Pradhan v. Amar Pradhan (2026) the Court upheld a DNA direction where paternity was directly in issue and no other evidence could answer it [5]. Outcomes thus turn heavily on facts and forum. - Absence of statute deepens the drift: the DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2019 is still not law, leaving standards to judicial discretion [6].

A framework is nevertheless emerging Read together, the rulings yield a workable test — necessity, last resort, and proportionality — rather than a stalemate.

The tension is real but increasingly managed, not chaotic: privacy yields only where truth is otherwise unattainable and a child's identity rights are at stake. Codifying this threshold through the pending DNA legislation, with judicial oversight and data safeguards, would convert case-by-case balancing into predictable law — advancing both dignity and justice under Article 21.

(~325 words)

Sources: 1. K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, W.P. (C) 494/2012, judgment dated 24 August 2017 — privacy and bodily integrity as fundamental rights under Article 21 2. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023), India Code — Section 116: birth during marriage as conclusive proof of legitimacy; non-access exception 3. Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, judgment dated 20 February 2023 — DNA report alone cannot displace the presumption; child's own privacy interest 4. Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, 2025 INSC 115, judgment dated 28 January 2025 — legitimacy under Section 112 determines paternity until non-access is proved 5. Chaturbhuj Pradhan v. Amar Pradhan, 2026 INSC 600 (Supreme Court of India, May 2026) — DNA test upheld where paternity is directly in issue and no other evidence suffices 6. The DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2019 — PRS Legislative Research — absence of an enacted statutory framework for DNA testing