R. RAJENDRAN versus KAMAR NISHA AND OTHERS

R. RAJENDRAN versus KAMAR NISHA AND OTHERS

The High Court's direction for DNA testing was set aside because the statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 Evidence Act remained unrebutted (no strong evidence of non-access), the paternity issue was collateral to the criminal charges and lacked a direct nexus to the offences, and ordering DNA testing would disproportionately infringe the privacy and bodily autonomy of the appellant and the child contrary to Article 21; Sections 53 and 53A CrPC do not justify compulsion absent such nexus.

Parties
Appellant: R. Rajendran; Respondent: Kamar Nisha and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of the High Court of Madras Dated 10.05.2017 in Writ Appeal (md) No.521 of 2017
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of the High Court dated 10.05.2017 set aside
Legal Topics
DNA Testing, Paternity, Presumption of Legitimacy Under Section 112 Evidence Act, Right to Privacy Under Article 21, Medical Examination Under Sections 53 and 53 a Cr PC, Adverse Inference Under Section 114 Evidence Act, Bodily Autonomy
Evidence Criminal Law Constitutional Law Family Law DNA Testing Paternity Presumption of Legitimacy Under Section 112 Evidence Act Right to Privacy Under Article 21 +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 6 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R. Rajendran

Appellant

Kamar Nisha and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of the High Court of Madras Dated 10.05.2017 in Writ Appeal (md) No.521 of 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in directing the appellant to undergo DNA testing
  2. 2 Whether the statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 Evidence Act was displaced
  3. 3 Whether ordering DNA testing would infringe the right to privacy under Article 21

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's direction for DNA testing was set aside because the statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 Evidence Act remained unrebutted (no strong evidence of non-access), the paternity issue was collateral to the criminal charges and lacked a direct nexus to the offences, and ordering DNA testing would disproportionately infringe the privacy and bodily autonomy of the appellant and the child contrary to Article 21; Sections 53 and 53A CrPC do not justify compulsion absent such nexus.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of the High Court dated 10.05.2017 set aside

Orders

  • Impugned judgment dated 10.05.2017 passed by the High Court in W.A. (MD) No.521 of 2017 is set aside
  • Direction for DNA testing of the appellant and the child, as ordered by the High Court, is vacated