Bench of justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy observed that when plaintiff is unwilling to have DNA test it can’t be forced upon him , as it will impinge on his personal liberty and right to privacy .
Where the other evidences are available to prove the case or dispute the proposed fact , court will generally refrain from going on blood test , because it will encroach right to privacy .
Plaintiff filed plaint in trial court for declaration of ownership of late Shri Tilak Das and Late Sona Devi . He claims to be their biological son , put evidences before the court but daughters of deceased rejected his proposition and refuses to identify him.
Daughters filed application before trial court order for plaintiff’s blood test , to this plaintiff
refused and said he has given adequate documentary evidences and should not be compelled to go for it . Trial court dismissed defendants application , against it they moved to high court , high court allowed the petiotion and direct plaintiff to go for DNA test .
Plaintiff approaches Supreme Court .
Issues framed by Supreme Court :-
- Whether plaintiff without undergoing DNA test is entitle toestablish his right through material evidence .
- Whether in absence of consent can party be forced to provide sample
- BANARASI DAS V. TEEKA DUTTA
DNA test is not to be directed as matter of routine but only in deserving cases .
The possibility of stigmatisation of a person in his mature years will be a bitter pill for him so much humiliating if he be proved a bastard by report .
Apex court held that trial court dismissed it correctly , when it came defendant’s to prove they shifted heir burden demanding DNA test .
Plaintiff showed enough certificates to show his biological relation , he is conscious of his refusal and also that adverse inference may arrive . But it is not a kind of case where DNA test is without exception .