ASHOK KUMAR versus RAJ GUPTA & ORS.

ASHOK KUMAR versus RAJ GUPTA & ORS.

Where the plaintiff in a declaratory suit has already led evidence and the defendants filed for DNA testing only when it was their turn to lead evidence, the trial court correctly dismissed the belated application; DNA tests are invasive of privacy and not to be ordered routinely where other evidence exists and the test of eminent need/proportionality is not satisfied; while refusal to undergo testing may permit adverse inference considerations, a party cannot be compelled to provide a DNA sample in such circumstances and the protection of the plaintiff's right to privacy prevails.

Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Ashok Kumar; Respondent/defendant: Raj Gupta & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court From High Court Revisional Order in Civil Revision No.8695 of 2017
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court order set aside; order passed by the Trial Court restored
Legal Topics
DNA Testing, Right to Privacy, Section 112 Evidence Act, Section 114 Evidence Act, Proportionality Test, Burden of Proof, Declaratory Suit Timing of Evidence
Evidence Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Property Law DNA Testing Right to Privacy Section 112 Evidence Act Section 114 Evidence Act +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashok Kumar

Appellant/plaintiff

Raj Gupta & Ors.

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court From High Court Revisional Order in Civil Revision No.8695 of 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a plaintiff in a declaratory suit can be compelled to undergo DNA testing against his wish
  2. 2 Whether refusal to undergo DNA testing can attract an adverse inference under Section 114 Evidence Act
  3. 3 Whether ordering DNA testing must satisfy a test of eminent need/proportionality and take timing of application into account

Ratio Decidendi

Where the plaintiff in a declaratory suit has already led evidence and the defendants filed for DNA testing only when it was their turn to lead evidence, the trial court correctly dismissed the belated application; DNA tests are invasive of privacy and not to be ordered routinely where other evidence exists and the test of eminent need/proportionality is not satisfied; while refusal to undergo testing may permit adverse inference considerations, a party cannot be compelled to provide a DNA sample in such circumstances and the protection of the plaintiff's right to privacy prevails.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned High Court order set aside; order passed by the Trial Court restored

Orders

  • High Court revisional order dated 08.03.2019 allowing DNA test set aside
  • Order of the Trial Court dated 28.11.2017 dismissing defendants' application for DNA test restored