A person can be subjected to a DNA test to determine the paternity of his alleged offspring even if he is acquitted of rape charges, the Supreme Court has ruled.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh passed the direction while dismissing Chaturbhuj Pradhan's plea challenging the concurrent directions passed by the First Additional Civil Judge, Class-II, Basna (Chhattisgarh), and Chhattisgarh High Court to undergo a DNA test to determine the paternity of respondent Amar Pradhan, who claimed that he was the biological son of the appellant.

Amar claimed he was born on September 10, 1999, as a result of a consensual relationship between his mother and Chaturbhuj.

Chaturbhuj denied the paternity claim and cited his acquittal in the rape case filed against him by Amar's mother in the parallel criminal proceedings conducted against him.

Amar, however, sought a DNA test to conclusively establish that he was Chaturbhuj's son and was entitled to a one-third share in his property.

Citing its earlier judgments, the apex court said the appellant's right to privacy was not absolute.

Writing the judgment, Justice Karol said proof by way of DNA profiling was to be directed in matrimonial disputes involving allegations of infidelity only where there was no other mode of proving such assertions.

“CP (Chaturbhuj) has consistently denied paternity and there is no other evidence that can provide a categorical answer. It is nobody’s case that the second respondent (Amar’s mother) had ever had an intimate relationship with someone else. As far as the right of privacy is concerned, we are balancing, in this case CP’s privacy with Amar’s desire for closure on a question that has loomed large on his life throughout," Justice Sanjay Karol observed.

"He has seen, right from childhood, his mother assert that CP is the father, but the authorities consistently found otherwise. If no positive answer is ever found out to the question, it is quite possible that Amar would forever be denied the rights he may otherwise be entitled to by virtue of being CP’s son,” he added.

The bench ruled that the "balance of interests definitely lies in favour of Amar" and there was no error in the impugned judgment.

It dismissed the appeal, saying: "Let the matter be taken up by the concerned civil court for fixing a date to conduct a DNA test and proceed further in the civil suit pending before it as per the result received subsequently.”