Today in New Delhi, India
Nov 17, 2018-Saturday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

Bombay high court quashes Mumbai sessions court order allowing DNA fingerprinting of a minor

Police wanted to use it as evidence to prove paternity of the minor

mumbai Updated: Feb 04, 2018 01:00 IST
Kanchan Chaudhari
Kanchan Chaudhari
Hindustan Times
Mumbai,Bombay high court,DNA
The HC said the sessions court should not have entertained the plea to conduct DNA fingerprinting on the minor.(HT FILE)

The Bombay high court recently struck down a Mumbai sessions court order allowing the police to take tissues or blood sample of a minor for conducting DNA fingerprinting, which the police aimed to use as evidence in a case of abetment to suicide.

The mother of the minor and her alleged paramour face the charge of abetting the suicide of her husband. According to police, the woman had an extramarital affair with the other accused because of which she harassed her husband and eventually compelled him to kill himself.

The police believe that the minor son was born out of the extramarital affair and therefore the investigation officer of the case had applied to the trial court for permission to conduct DNA fingerprinting to ascertain the paternity of the child. Accordingly, the additional sessions judge on July 27, 2017 granted permission to the investigation officer to conduct the forensic examination.

The woman had approached the high court challenging the July 2017 order. Her lawyer, advocate VJ Bhanushali, submitted that the order was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court that no person can be compelled to undergo such forensic tests and the order to subject the minor to DNA fingerprinting was a violation of his fundamental rights.

Justice Revati Mohite-Dere accepted the contentions and struck down the order. “The petitioner’s minor son could not have been directed to undergo a DNA test,” said justice Mohite-Dere while quashing the sessions court order.

The judge said the application filed by the investigating officer seeking permission to subject the minor to DNA fingerprinting was “clearly misconceived” and as such ought not to have been entertained by the learned judge.

First Published: Feb 04, 2018 01:00 IST