Revision summary
Puttaswamy held that privacy is part of Article 21 and that any restriction must be legal, necessary and proportionate. Section 112 of the Evidence Act treats a child born in a valid marriage as legitimate unless non-access is proved. Goutam Kundu and later cases refused to make DNA a routine paternity weapon in a private quarrel. A test on a child still in the womb adds miscarriage risk and collides with the woman’s bodily autonomy. Suchita Srivastava had already linked reproductive choice to personal liberty. Proportionality will rarely justify a prenatal paternity expedition. The law of paternity is not a right to inspect a womb.
Model answer
Introduction
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India held that privacy is not a foreign graft on Article 21. It is intrinsic to life and personal liberty: dignity, bodily autonomy, informational self-control. A demand that a pregnant woman submit her foetus to a paternity DNA test sits at the hardest edge of that holding. Indian evidence law was already cautious about DNA even after birth.
Body
Privacy under Article 21
Privacy is a fundamental right; any restriction must pass legality, legitimate aim and proportionality.
- Peg: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India held that the procedure which takes away personal liberty must be fair, just and reasonable, not merely a form in a statute.
- Peg: The nine-judge Bench in Puttaswamy (2017) held that privacy is a fundamental right covering the body, the home and personal data.
- Peg: Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration treated a woman’s reproductive choice as a dimension of personal liberty; a forced medical procedure is a search of the body.
- Peg: After Puttaswamy, a court order compelling such a procedure is still State action; the party who wants it must show an aim that cannot be met by a milder means.
DNA and paternity after birth
Legitimacy is a rule of evidence, not a husband’s right to a laboratory.
- Peg: Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act — and the matching provision of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam — says a child born during a valid marriage is conclusive proof of legitimacy unless non-access is proved.
- Peg: Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal warned that courts should not order tests that “bastardise” a child to satisfy suspicion.
- Peg: Later Benches in Bhabani Prasad Jena, Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy and related cases allowed a test only when the interest of justice clearly required it, with a possible adverse inference on refusal — not a routine swab in every maintenance fight.
- Peg: The child’s legitimacy, dignity and privacy do not belong to curiosity.
The child in the womb
A prenatal paternity expedition adds miscarriage risk to an already exceptional power.
- Peg: Amniocentesis or chorionic sampling carries a risk of miscarriage; it is more invasive than a swab after birth.
- Peg: Indian law does not treat the foetus as a full constitutional person in the way it treats a born child; the pregnant woman’s health and privacy are the primary rights on the table.
- Peg: Using the second trimester as a device to prove adultery will almost always fail proportionality.
- Peg: A rare case of serious crime, or a procedure already needed for the woman’s health, is imaginable; a private paternity quarrel is not.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD P[Puttaswamy Art 21] --> B[Bodily autonomy] E[s.112 legitimacy] --> C[Born child] W[In-utero DNA] --> R[Risk to woman and foetus] R --> N[Usually no order] B --> N C --> N
Conclusion
Privacy is part of Article 21. DNA paternity tests are exceptional, not routine, because of Section 112 and the child’s dignity. A test on the unborn child for paternity will almost always fail proportionality against the woman’s bodily autonomy.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Discuss India as a secular state and compare with the secular principles of the US constitution.
Next question on this syllabus topic (2024 · Q15). View answer →
-
Can a husband compel amniocentesis for paternity?
Almost never. The invasion and risk are on the woman; suspicion is not a proportionate aim.
-
Is a born child’s DNA easier to order?
Easier than in-utero, still not automatic. Courts balance truth against legitimacy and the child’s privacy.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2025 · Q3 · GS II · 10 marks
Compare and contrast the President's power to pardon in India and in the USA. Are there any limits to it in both the countries? What are 'preemptive pardons'? -
2024 · Q1 · GS II · 10 marks
Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees, with particular reference to "one nation - one election" principle. -
2024 · Q15 · GS II · 15 marks
Discuss India as a secular state and compare with the secular principles of the US constitution. -
2023 · Q1 · GS II · 10 marks
"Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy". Comment. -
2023 · Q11 · GS II · 15 marks
" The Construction of India is a living instrument with capabilities of enormous dynamism. It is a constitution made for a progressive society". Illustrate with special reference to the expanding horizons of the right to life and personal liberty. -
2023 · Q12 · GS II · 15 marks
Explain the constitutional perspectives of Gender Justice with the help of relevant Constitutional Provisions and case laws. -
2023 · Q13 · GS II · 15 marks
Account for the legal and political factors responsible for the reduced frequency of using Article 356 by the Union Governments since mid 1990s. -
2022 · Q4 · GS II · 10 marks
Discuss the role of the Vice -Presidents of India as the chairman of the Rajyasabha.
More from this topic
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2025 · GS II · 10 marks
Compare and contrast the President's power to pardon in India and in the USA. Are there any limits to it in both the countries? What are 'preemptive pardons'?
Indian Constitution
Article 72 (and 161) are exercised on aid and advice; Maru Ram, Kehar Singh, Epuru Sudhakar and Shatrughan Chauhan frame Indian limits and delay. The US Article II pardon is personal, federal-only, and barred in impeachment. Judicial review is stronger in India; political cost is the main US brake. A preemptive pardon forgives before conviction, as in Ford–Nixon. India has no working doctrine of preemptive pardon for the untried.
Q15 · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS II · 15 marks
Discuss India as a secular state and compare with the secular principles of the US constitution.
Indian Constitution
Indian secularism: Preamble, Articles 25–28, Bommai as basic structure, personal laws, State reform of Hindu law and regulation of temples. US secularism: First Amendment establishment and free exercise, Everson’s wall, Engel on school prayer, no millet personal law. India practises principled distance and social reform; the United States practises non-establishment. Minority educational rights under Article 30 have no US analogue of that form. Neither wall nor distance is a finished peace with majoritarian politics. Comparison is of method, not of piety.
Q1 · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS II · 10 marks
Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees, with particular reference to "one nation - one election" principle.
Indian Constitution
Tarkunde, Goswami, Law Commission 170/255 and the Election Commission have long asked for ceilings on party spend, faster petitions, and inner-party democracy. Candidate spend is capped; party spend is not, which is why money still dominates the poll. ADR disclosure and Lily Thomas reduced opacity and the conviction cushion; they did not end criminalisation. ONOE, as framed by the Kovind committee, promises one Model Code freeze, lower cost and less policy freeze. Federal cost: truncated Assemblies, President’s Rule risk, and nationalisation of State polls. Simultaneity is not a substitute for audited party finance and a statutory Code. Reform that works is a package, not a single polling date.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.