M v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2026

The petitioner had married the de facto complainant in January 2011.

A male child was born from the marriage in June 2012.

The complainant later discovered that the petitioner had allegedly suppressed the existence of his subsisting first marriage.

She alleged that the petitioner had fraudulently induced her to enter into the subsequent marriage.

She also alleged that the petitioner had dishonestly obtained money and property from her.

The complainant filed a private complaint before the Magistrate.

Pursuant to the Magistrate's directions, an FIR was registered against the petitioner.

The alleged offences included Sections 495, 420 read with 418, and 468 IPC.

A final report was subsequently filed and the matter proceeded before the Additional Mahila Court.

During cross-examination of the complainant, the petitioner made a suggestion that he was not the biological father of the minor child.

He also suggested that the complainant had previously married another man.

Based upon these suggestions made during cross-examination, the prosecution sought an order directing the petitioner and the minor child to undergo DNA testing.

The Additional Mahila Court allowed the prosecution's application.

The petitioner challenged that order before the Madras High Court through a criminal revision petition.

The petitioner argued that the DNA test had been ordered mechanically and without sufficient legal basis.

He contended that suggestions made during cross-examination could not, by themselves, justify compelling an accused to undergo DNA testing.

The prosecution argued that DNA testing had become necessary because of the issues raised during cross-examination.

The High Court examined whether determining the child's biological paternity was relevant to the alleged offence of bigamy with concealment of the former marriage.

The Madras High Court allowed the criminal revision petition.

The Court set aside the order of the Additional Mahila Court directing DNA testing.

The Court held that a DNA test can be directed only where there is an eminent need for such testing.

The Court emphasised that the result of the DNA test must be directly relevant to an issue that requires determination.

The Court examined the essential ingredients of Sections 494 and 495 IPC.

For an offence under Section 495, it must be established that the accused committed bigamy and concealed the former marriage from the person with whom the subsequent marriage was contracted.

The Court found that determining the biological paternity of the child was not an essential ingredient of the alleged offence.

Consequently, the child's paternity had no direct bearing on determination of the alleged bigamy offence.

The Court noted that even in cases where DNA testing may assist in establishing an essential element of an offence, such testing should ordinarily be considered only after other available methods have been exhausted and as a last resort.

In the present case, the Court found no such necessity.

The Court held that the trial court's direction for DNA testing suffered from a misdirection in law.

The fact that the petitioner had raised an allegation regarding paternity during cross-examination did not, by itself, establish sufficient grounds for compulsory DNA testing.

The trial court's order was therefore found to be without legal merit.

The order directing DNA testing was accordingly set aside.

Relevance is the starting point: The Court emphasised that DNA testing cannot be ordered simply because it might provide additional information. The test must be directly connected to an issue that the court actually needs to decide.

Bigamy and paternity are distinct: The alleged offence under Section 495 IPC concerns concealment of a previous subsisting marriage while contracting another marriage. Biological paternity does not constitute an essential ingredient of that offence.

Eminent need requirement: The judgment reinforces the principle that compulsory DNA testing requires more than mere curiosity or convenience. There must be a genuine and legally relevant necessity.

DNA testing as a last resort: The Court noted the Supreme Court's approach that even where DNA evidence may be relevant, courts should first consider whether the issue can be established through other available evidence.

Cross-examination is not enough: A suggestion put to a witness during cross-examination does not automatically amount to substantive evidence establishing the truth of the suggestion. The mere raising of a paternity allegation therefore could not justify compulsory DNA testing.

Protection of bodily autonomy and privacy: Compulsory DNA testing has implications for personal liberty, bodily autonomy and privacy. Such an intrusive direction therefore requires a clear legal justification.

Avoiding unnecessary forensic intrusion: Where the proposed scientific examination has no bearing on the essential ingredients of the offence, ordering it would unnecessarily subject the persons concerned to an intrusive procedure.

Focus on ingredients of offence: The Court's approach demonstrates that criminal courts must first identify the essential ingredients of the offence and then determine whether the proposed evidence is genuinely necessary to establish those ingredients.

No automatic right to DNA evidence: The prosecution cannot seek DNA testing merely because it may strengthen its case. The prosecution must establish why the test is legally necessary.

Broader significance: The judgment provides an important safeguard against routine or mechanical DNA-testing orders and reinforces the principle that forensic evidence must have a clear nexus with the legal issue before the court.