R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha 2025 INSC 1304 - S.112 Evidence Act - Presumption - Child Legitimacy

Key Details

• Case name: R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha and Others.
• Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 1304.
• Coram: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi.
• Judgment date: November 10, 2025.

Caselaws and Citations Referenced

• Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal, (1993) 3 SCC 418.
• Sharda v. Dharmpal, (2003) 4 SCC 493.
• Banarsi Dass v. Teeku Dutta, (2005) 4 SCC 449.
• Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram, (2001) 5 SCC 311.
• Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, (2010) 8 SCC 633.
• Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik, (2014) 2 SCC 576.
• Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy, (2015) 1 SCC 365.
• K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1; and Aadhaar, (2019) 1 SCC 1.
• Ashok Kumar v. Raj Gupta, (2022) 1 SCC 20.
• Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, 2023 INSC 146; [2023] 4 SCR 680.
• Inayath Ali v. State of Telangana, (2024) 7 SCC 822.
• Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 175.

Statutes / Laws Referred

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 112 (conclusive presumption of legitimacy); Section 114(g), (h) (adverse inference).
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 53 and 53A (medical examination and DNA profiling context).
• Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 417 (cheating), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), referenced in FIR.
• Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act: Section 4(1).
• Constitution of India: Articles 20(3) (testimonial compulsion) and 21 (privacy and personal liberty).

I. CASE BASICS

Q1: What is the complete citation of this case?

Answer: R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha and Others, 2025 INSC 1304, decided by the Supreme Court of India on November 10, 2025.

Q2: Who constituted the bench in this case?

Answer: A two-judge bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi.

Q3: What was the date of the judgment?

Answer: November 10, 2025.

II. SECTION 112 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - CORE PRINCIPLES

Q4: What is the presumption established under Section 112 of the Evidence Act?

Answer: Section 112 creates a conclusive presumption that the husband is deemed to be the father of a child born to his wife during the continuance of a valid marriage. This presumption favours legitimacy and operates as a legal safeguard for children born within wedlock.

Q5: How durable is the presumption under Section 112?

Answer: The presumption endures unless it is affirmatively established by strong and unambiguous evidence that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when the child could have been begotten, or following the dissolution of marriage while the mother remains unmarried.

Q6: Why does the law favour legitimacy over illegitimacy?

Answer: The law favours legitimacy to protect the dignity, social legitimacy, and legal rights of children born within wedlock. Section 112 stands as a bulwark against the casual illegitimization of children on the strength of unsubstantiated allegations or mere suspicion.

Q7: On whom does the burden of proof lie to displace the presumption?

Answer: The burden is cast upon the person who asserts "illegitimacy" to displace the presumption through strong and unambiguous evidence of non-access.

III. CONCEPT OF "ACCESS" AND "NON-ACCESS"Q8: What does "access" mean under Section 112?

Answer: "Access" under Section 112 must be understood in a very narrow and specific sense, referring to the possibility of sexual relations between the spouses during the relevant period when the child could have been conceived.

Q9: What does "non-access" denote?

Answer: Non-access denotes the impossibility, not merely the absence or lack of opportunity for sexual relations between spouses. It represents a complete absence of possibility rather than just improbability.

Q10: What circumstances can establish non-access even when cohabitation exists?

Answer: Non-access may arise even where cohabitation exists due to:

• Impotency
• Serious illness
• Physical incapacity
• Absence during the relevant period

Q11: Does lack of cohabitation alone establish non-access?

Answer: No. The lack of cohabitation alone does not establish non-access. The focus is on the impossibility of sexual relations, not merely separate living arrangements.

Q12: What factors do NOT establish non-access?

Answer: The following do NOT establish non-access:

• Existence of extramarital relations by the wife
• Separate residences
• Non-communication between spouses
• Allegations of multiple or simultaneous access by third parties
• Infidelity on the wife's part

Q13: Does a wife's infidelity displace the presumption of legitimacy?

Answer: No. Infidelity on the wife's part does not, by itself, displace the presumption of legitimacy if the husband had access to the wife during the relevant period.

Q14: What is the focus when determining legitimacy under Section 112?

Answer: The focus remains on the time of the child's birth, while the time of conception is relevant only to determine whether access between the spouses existed during the period when the child could have been conceived.

IV. STANDARD OF PROOFQ15: What standard of proof is required to displace the presumption under Section 112?

Answer: The standard of proof must be higher than mere preponderance of probabilities, yet need not reach the exacting criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is an intermediate threshold requiring strong, cogent, and unambiguous evidence establishing non-access.

Q16: Why is an intermediate standard adopted?

Answer: This intermediate threshold serves the twin objectives of:

1. Preventing the illegitimization of the child on the strength of mere assertions or tilting of probabilities
2. Simultaneously guarding against weaponization of the statutory presumption to defeat legitimate claims

Q17: What quality of evidence is required to rebut the presumption?

Answer: The person seeking to rebut the presumption must adduce strong, cogent, and unambiguous evidence establishing non-access. Failing this, the statutory presumption must prevail.

Q18: Can the presumption be displaced without proving non-access?

Answer: No. Proof of non-access at the relevant period is the only mode of rebuttal recognized by law. In the absence of a specific plea of non-access supported by strong and unambiguous evidence, the foundation for displacing the statutory presumption simply does not exist.

V. DNA TESTING - LEGAL FRAMEWORKQ19: When can a DNA test be ordered to determine paternity?

Answer: Without first displacing the statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 by leading positive and cogent evidence of non-access, no occasion arises for directing a DNA test.

Q20: What happens if prerequisites for DNA testing are not satisfied?

Answer: Where the prerequisites for ordering a DNA test are not satisfied, the question of drawing any adverse inference from the refusal to undergo it does not arise at all.

Q21: Is forceful DNA testing constitutional?

Answer: Forcefully subjecting an individual to DNA testing constitutes a grave intrusion upon privacy and personal liberty. Such encroachment can be justified only if it satisfies the threefold test of:

1. Legality
2. Legitimate State aim
3. Proportionality

Q22: What constitutional provisions protect against forced DNA testing?

Answer: Articles 20(3) (protection against testimonial compulsion) and Article 21 (right to privacy and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India provide safeguards against forced DNA testing.

Q23: When does compelling DNA testing become unconstitutional?

Answer: In the absence of a direct and demonstrable nexus with the offences under investigation, compelling a person to undergo DNA profiling amounts to unwarranted intrusion into bodily autonomy and privacy, contrary to the safeguards implicit in Articles 20(3) and 21.

Q24: What are the ramifications of DNA testing?

Answer: DNA testing intrudes into the innermost sphere of personal identity, autonomy, and privacy. It can have lasting emotional and social ramifications not only for children but also for adults, as it often brings to surface intimate aspects of familial and personal relationships.

Q25: What must be safeguarded when ordering DNA testing?

Answer: The autonomy, dignity, and emotional wellbeing of the individual, especially of a minor, must be safeguarded. A direction for DNA testing without considering the ramifications risks inflicting irreversible psychological and social harm.

VI. SECTIONS 53 AND 53A OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDUREQ26: What is the purpose of Sections 53 and 53A of CrPC?

Answer: These provisions are intended to be invoked in cases involving offences where medical examination of the accused, including collection of blood, semen, hair samples, or nail clippings, may furnish material evidence directly bearing upon the commission of the offence.

Q27: What condition must be satisfied for applying Sections 53 and 53A?

Answer: Their application is conditioned upon the existence of a clear and proximate nexus between the examination sought and the alleged offence.

Q28: When do Sections 53 and 53A contemplate medical examination?

Answer: They contemplate medical examination only where such examination may directly yield evidence relating to the commission of the alleged offence. Absent that nexus, compulsion of a DNA test becomes an intrusive measure devoid of necessity.

Q29: What happens when DNA testing lacks nexus with the alleged offence?

Answer: Absent the required nexus, compulsion of a DNA test transforms a lawful investigative power into an intrusive measure trenching upon the individual's bodily autonomy and privacy.

Q30: What principle governs the use of scientific procedures in investigation?

Answer: Scientific procedures, however advanced, cannot be employed as instruments of speculation. They must be anchored in demonstrable relevance to the charge and justified by compelling investigative need.

VII. LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND SIGNIFICANCEQ31: What is the legislative policy embodied in Section 112?

Answer: Section 112 embodies a legislative policy of profound significance. It stands as a bulwark against the casual illegitimization of children on the strength of unsubstantiated allegations or mere suspicion.

Q32: Is the presumption under Section 112 merely procedural?

Answer: No. The presumption is not a procedural formality to be lightly displaced but a substantive safeguard intended to protect the dignity, social legitimacy, and legal rights of children born within wedlock.

Q33: What interests does Section 112 protect?

Answer: Section 112 protects:

• The dignity of children born within wedlock
• Their social legitimacy
• Their legal rights
• Their emotional and psychological wellbeing
• Their status in society

VIII. KEY PRECEDENTS CITEDQ34: Which are the important cases cited in this judgment?

Answer: The judgment cited several important precedents including:

• Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993) 3 SCC 418
• Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003) 4 SCC 493
• Banarsi Dass v. Teeku Dutta (2005) 4 SCC 449
• Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2014) 2 SCC 576
• Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (2015) 1 SCC 365
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
• Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023) 4 SCR 680

IX. STATUTES AND PROVISIONS REFERREDQ35: Which statutes were referred to in this judgment?

Answer: The judgment referred to:

1. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 112, 114(g), (h)
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 53 and 53A
3. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 417, 420
4. Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act - Section 4(1)
5. Constitution of India - Articles 20(3) and 21

X. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONSQ36: What must a party establish to seek DNA testing?

Answer: A party must first displace the statutory presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 by leading positive and cogent evidence of non-access between the spouses during the relevant period.

Q37: Can mere allegations of infidelity justify DNA testing?

Answer: No. Mere allegations of infidelity, without establishing non-access, cannot justify ordering DNA testing or displacing the presumption of legitimacy.

Q38: What protection does this judgment provide to children?

Answer: The judgment protects children from being illegitimized based on:

• Unsubstantiated allegations
• Mere suspicion
• Casual assertions without strong evidence
• Speculative claims without proof of non-access

Q39: How does this judgment balance competing interests?

Answer: The judgment balances:

• The child's right to legitimacy and social status
• The need for truth in appropriate cases
• Privacy and bodily autonomy rights
• The investigative needs of the state
• The dignity and emotional wellbeing of all parties

Q40: What is the key takeaway for legal practitioners?

Answer: Legal practitioners must understand that:

1. The presumption under Section 112 is substantive, not procedural
2. Strong, cogent evidence of non-access must be led first
3. DNA testing cannot be the starting point of inquiry
4. Constitutional rights to privacy and bodily autonomy must be respected
5. The emotional and social impact on children must be considered
6. Scientific evidence must have demonstrable nexus with alleged offences

XI. ADVERSE INFERENCEQ41: Can adverse inference be drawn from refusal to undergo DNA testing?

Answer: No adverse inference can be drawn from refusal to undergo DNA testing where the prerequisites for ordering such a test are not satisfied in the first place. The statutory presumption must first be displaced before the question of DNA testing even arises.

Q42: Which sections of the Evidence Act deal with adverse inference?

Answer: Sections 114(g) and 114(h) of the Indian Evidence Act deal with drawing adverse inferences, but they cannot override the substantive presumption under Section 112 without proper foundation.

XII. NEXUS REQUIREMENTQ43: What nexus is required for DNA testing?

Answer: A direction for DNA testing must have a direct and demonstrable nexus with the offences under investigation. This nexus must be clear and proximate, not speculative or remote.

Q44: What are the consequences of lack of nexus?

Answer: Without the required nexus:

• DNA testing becomes an unwarranted intrusion
• It violates bodily autonomy
• It breaches privacy rights
• It exceeds lawful investigative powers
• It causes unjustified psychological and social harm

XIII. CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCEQ45: Why is this judgment significant in modern times?

Answer: This judgment is significant because it:

• Reaffirms child protection principles in the age of advanced genetic testing
• Balances scientific capabilities with constitutional rights
• Prevents misuse of DNA technology
• Protects family relationships from speculative intrusions
• Establishes clear guidelines for courts and investigating agencies
• Upholds the sanctity of marriage and legitimacy of children

This document contains 45 comprehensive questions and answers covering all major aspects of the R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha (2025 INSC 1304) judgment.