When two fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 conflict, how should courts adjudicate? Illustrate with reference to paternity disputes.

Q. When two fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 conflict, how should courts adjudicate? Illustrate with reference to paternity disputes. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

After K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), Article 21 shelters several distinct rights — privacy, bodily integrity and identity [1]. When two of these collide, courts do not rank them; they resolve the clash through necessity, proportionality and balancing of harms.

Why an intra-Article 21 conflict arises - Privacy and bodily autonomy are fundamental rights, so compelled medical testing is itself an invasion [1]. - The same Article grounds a child's right to know biological parentage as part of identity. - Section 116, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (earlier Sec. 112, IEA 1872) conclusively presumes legitimacy of a child born in wedlock, rebuttable only by proving non-access [2] — setting statutory certainty against scientific truth.

Principles courts apply - No absolutes, no hierarchy: each right is examined in context rather than pre-ranked. - Statutory threshold first: the presumption of legitimacy must be prima facie displaced before evidence-gathering is permitted [3]. - Eminent need / last resort: a DNA test is directed only in exceptional cases where the dispute cannot be resolved otherwise — never routinely [3]. - Least intrusive means and consequence-weighing: the stigma of illegitimacy and the child's own privacy are weighed against the value of truth. - Welfare of the child operates as the tie-breaker where the balance is even.

Illustration: paternity disputes - In Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025), the Court held that legitimacy and paternity are distinct, and refused a DNA test where non-access was unproved [3]. - Conversely, the June 2026 ruling upheld a trial court's DNA test order, holding that where necessity is demonstrated, the alleged father's privacy must yield to the child's right to know [5] — confirming that privacy is a shield against arbitrariness, not against justified enquiry.

Thus courts adjudicate not by choosing a superior right but by asking whether the intrusion is necessary, proportionate and least restrictive. Enacting a comprehensive DNA regulation framework, long pending before Parliament [4], would supply uniform judicial standards and lend this balancing exercise the predictability that Article 21 itself demands.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, 24 August 2017 — privacy and bodily autonomy as fundamental rights under Article 21 2. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023), India Code — Section 116 presumption of legitimacy and rebuttal by non-access 3. Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, 2025 INSC 115, Supreme Court of India — DNA tests only in exceptional cases; presumption must be rebutted first 4. The DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2019 — PRS Legislative Research — pending statutory framework covering paternity suits 5. "SC balances child's right to know paternity, father's right to privacy", The Hindu, 7 June 2026 — June 2026 ruling upholding the trial court's DNA test order