Forensic Science’s Role in Shaping Judicial Precedent: A Case Comment on Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik

I. Introduction

(A) Facts of the case

The husband, named Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik, petitioner in the above mentioned case, was married to Lata Nandlal Badwaik and was claimed to be the father of their daughter, Netra alias Neha Nandlal Badwaik. They got married on June 30, 1990, in Chandrapur. Lata applied for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but the Magistrate dismissed it on December 10, 1993. Later, she initiated a new proceeding under the same section, asserting that she lived with her husband from June 20, 1996, for about two years, during which she got pregnant and gave birth to their daughter. The husband denied these claims, stating that he had no physical relationship with his wife after 1991 and refuted paternity of their daughter. The Magistrate ruled in favour of the wife, granting maintenance to her and their daughter. The husband’s attempted to challenge this decision in revision and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were unsuccessful, leading to his challenge against those orders in the Supreme Court of India. The husband contested the girl child’s paternity and opposed the maintenance to the respondents. Additionally, the petitioner sought to have the child undergo a DNA test, but this request was denied. As a result, he filed a “Special Leave Petition” contesting the refusal of such test and renewed the plea for its conduct.

II. Supreme Court’s order and its aftermath

The Court granted the leave and gave the permission for a DNA test to ascertain the paternity of the daughter in response to the husband’s challenge and request for the same. The husband was directed to deposit all maintenance dues, which he did, leading to approval for the DNA test. The Respondents, wife and daughter in this case, also submitted themselves for the test without any protest from their side. The Regional Forensic Science Laboratory in Nagpur conducted the test, which indicated that the petitioner was not the biological father of the other Respondent Neha Nandlal Badwaik. However, the respondents requested a re-test, which the Court granted due to the serious implications of the initial report. The re-test was conducted at the Central Forensic Laboratory in Hyderabad, which also concluded that the husband could be excluded as the biological father of the child.

This sequence of events underscored the meticulous approach taken by the Court in resolving the paternity dispute through scientific evidence.

III. Contentions from both the sides

(A) First contention from the respondents’ Counsel after the second DNA test-

At the outset, Mr. Manish Pitale, representing the respondents, contended that the appellant’s failure to establish his lack of access to his wife during the conception period of daughter child undermined the legitimacy of the Court’s directive for a DNA test. He relied on precedents set by the Supreme Court in resolving various cases. The Counsel for respondents first cited the case of Goutam Kundu v. State of W.B.,² and highlighted specific excerpts from the judgment. According to Pitale, this judgment emphasized the necessity for the party disputing paternity to furnish evidence of non-access to dispel the presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He further argued that the Court should exercise caution in ordering DNA tests, as stated in the aforementioned case, especially considering the potential consequences, such as labeling a child as illegitimate. Another case cited by the Counsel was Banarsi Dass v. Teeku Dutta,³ where the Court elucidated on the implications of the Section in light of modern scientific advancements like DNA testing. He underscored the argument that even scientifically accurate DNA tests do not override the legal presumption of paternity under Section 112. Furthermore, he referred to the decision in Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women,⁴ asserted that the Court must balance the right to privacy with the duty to ascertain the truth when considering DNA testing. He stressed that DNA tests should not be ordered routinely and must be deemed necessary for a just decision in the matter.

(B) Reply from the petitioner’ Counsel-

On the other hand, Miss Anagha S. Desai, representing the appellant, countered the respondents’ Counsel arguments by pointing out that the Supreme Court had twice ordered DNA tests in this case. Therefore, she contended that debating the propriety of the tests at this stage of the proceeding was irrelevant. She asserted that the respondents did not object to the tests initially and were challenging them only after receiving unfavourable results. She argued that based on the DNA test results, which indicated non-paternity, the appellant should not be held liable to pay maintenance for the child.

(C) Counter argument by the respondents’ Counsel-

However, Pitale rebutted this claim and argued that the appellant’s marital status and access to his wife during conception affirm the child's legitimacy, as per Section 112 of the Evidence Act. To support his argument, Pitale cited the Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram,⁵ emphasizing the Court's stance on the legitimacy of a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage, regardless of DNA test results. He emphasized from the case that while a valid DNA test result is scientifically accurate, if it contradicts the presumption outlined in Section 112 of the Act, the presumption still stands. For example, if a husband and wife lived together during conception but the DNA test shows otherwise, the legal presumption of paternity remains intact. This scenario may appear unjust from the husband’s perspective, as he could be unjustly burdened with fatherhood of a child to whom he is not biologically related. Nonetheless, in such circumstances, the law tends to favour the innocent child’s status, safeguarding them from being branded illegitimate, particularly if the mother and her spouse were residing together at the time of conception.

The arguments presented by both parties revolved around the legal principles established by relevant precedents regarding paternity disputes and the use of DNA testing as evidence.

IV. Issue raised

The Honourable Supreme Court framed the central issue of the case:

“Whether the DNA test results would be adequate to establish that the appellant was not the biological father of the girl, considering the provision of Section 112 of the Evidence Act, which read as Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy.”

V. Observations made by the Apex Court

(A) Court on the DNA test and its accuracy-

The Supreme Court felt essential to grasp the nature of DNA testing and its reliability, before examining the case on merit. “All living organisms consist of cells, which are the fundamental units of life. The genetic blueprint of an individual resides in DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid), present in the chromosomes of cells. Typically, human cells contain 46 chromosomes, comprising six billion base pairs distributed across 46 duplex threads of DNA. DNA consists of four nitrogenous bases - adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine - along with phosphoric acid, arranged in a regular structure. When comparing the DNA patterns of two unrelated individuals, the likelihood of complete similarity is exceedingly rare, estimated at 1 in 30 billion to 300 billion. Given the global population of approximately 5 billion, DNA testing yields highly accurate results. As acknowledged by the Court in Kamti Devi case⁶ that genuine DNA tests are scientifically precise. In the current context, there was no dispute regarding the authenticity of the DNA test results; thus, it must be assumed that these results were accurate.”⁷ Here the tests clearly proved that the appellant was not the biological father.

(B) Court regarding the conclusive proof of legitimacy for a child born during marriage-

Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 establishes that a child born during a valid marriage or within 280 days after its dissolution, while the mother remains unmarried, is presumed to be the legitimate child of the husband, unless it is proven that the parties had no access to each other at the time of conception. From the text, it’s clear that a child born during a valid marriage is automatically considered the legitimate. This presumption stands unless it’s proven that the parties had no opportunity for conception. In this case, the wife claimed the husband had access to her, leading to the child’s birth but husband argued that after the wife left their home, he had no access to her. Despite this, none of the Courts addressed whether access existed when conception could have occurred.

The DNA test results clearly indicated that the appellant was not the biological father of the girl-child. However, Section 112 of the Evidence Act established the child’s legitimacy due to her birth during a valid marriage. Despite this, no determination had been made regarding the husband's claim of lack of access to his wife during conception. Given the conflicting evidence, determining precedence between the DNA test and Section 112 presented a complex dilemma. The Section of the Evidence Act was written at a period predating modern scientific advancements and DNA testing. Although DNA tests are scientifically accurate, Section 112 assumes conclusive proof under specific conditions, which can be challenged. Presumptions are unnecessary when facts are known, and evidence to the contrary should be considered, prioritizing the pursuit of truth. Courts should rely on the best available science and avoid presumptions unless scientific evidence is unavailable.

(C) Court on the cases cited by the respondents-

The Honourable Court was unable to review the validity of the orders issued by another Bench of this Court at this juncture as they had already attained finality. Consequently, the Court did not discern any merit in the arguments presented by the counsel for the respondents. Furthermore, the decisions rendered by this Court in the cases of Goutam Kundu,⁸ Banarsi Dass,⁹ and Bhabani Prasad Jena¹⁰ were irrelevant to the present case’s facts and circumstances. In those cases, the Court deliberated on whether the facts and circumstances warranted ordering a DNA test. Since the order for a DNA test had already been issued and conducted twice in the present case, the Court did not concern with revisiting the matter. The Court had to proceed under the assumption that a valid directive for a DNA test was indeed issued, because all of the tests had been already done according orders of this Court. This Court found that the husband had no opportunity for relations with his wife, and no DNA test was conducted. The judgment did not disregard DNA tests but emphasized that in cases of access or non-access, DNA results cannot supersede the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Act.¹¹ None of the mentioned cases involved a scenario where a DNA test report conflicted with the presumption of a child’s legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, these judgments do not support the respondents’ case.

VI. Judgement with reasoning

At the end, the honourable Supreme Court expressed its view, “when there is a conflict between a conclusive proof stipulated by law and evidence based on widely accepted scientific advancements, the latter should take precedence over the former.” It’s crucial to differentiate between “a legal fiction and the presumption of a fact.” While legal fiction assumes the existence of a fact that may not actually be true, presumption of a fact relies on specific circumstances logically leading to the presumed fact. Section 112 of the Evidence Act establishes a presumption rather than creating a legal fiction. The husband’s claim of lack of access to his wife during conception was supported by the DNA test report. Consequently, compelling the appellant to accept fatherhood when scientific evidence proved otherwise would be unjust. Although it’s important to protect the innocence of the child, given the DNA test reports but the Court didn’t want to ignore the truth by upholding “Truth must triumph is the hallmark of justice.”

As a result, the challenged judgment concerning the maintenance payment to girl child was overturned and gave direction that any payments already rendered as maintenance shall not be reclaimed from the respondents. Honourable Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad delivered the judgment, which was reportable, on behalf of the Bench, alongside Honourable Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar.

VII. Conclusion

In this landmark case, forensic science reshaped legal interpretations, demonstrating the necessity of scientific evidence in family law disputes. Although the honourable Court made a good point that in such cases the test for DNA should be given cautiously to refrain from designating a child as bastardized. The Court’s recognition of DNA testing’s accuracy over traditional legal presumptions highlights the evolving role of science in shaping judicial decisions.

*****

Footnotes

1. Author is a LL.M. student at School of Criminal Law and Military Law, Rashtriya Raksha University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India.

2. (1993) 3 SCC 418. paras 24, 26 & 27. ↩

3. (2005) 4 SCC 449, para 13. ↩

4. (2010) 8 SCC 633, para 22. ↩

5. (2001) 5 SCC 311, paragraph 10. ↩

6. Supra note 6. ↩

7. Considerations by the Honourable Bench in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik, AIR 2014 SC 932 ↩

8. Supra note 3. ↩

9. Supra note 4. ↩

10. Supra note 5. ↩

11. Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram, (2001) 5 SCC 311, paragraph 10. ↩