GS Paper II 2024 · Q12
15 marks · 250 words Constitution: evolution, features & basic structure X-Ray · Core #21Right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty and is inherently protected under Article 21 of the constitution. Explain. In this reference discuss the law relating to D.N.A. testing of child in the womb to establish its paternity.
Approach · directive: “explain / discuss”
What it asks · Explain privacy as part of Article 21 after Puttaswamy, then apply it to DNA testing of an unborn child for paternity — presumption of legitimacy, court power, consent and the woman's bodily autonomy.
It asks 2 things — answer each
- Explain: how the right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty under Article 21 — Puttaswamy, its roots, dimensions and limits
- Discuss the law on DNA testing of a child in the womb to establish paternity: presumption of legitimacy, the court's power, consent and bodily autonomy, and safeguards
Open with · In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) a nine-judge bench held privacy intrinsic to life and personal liberty under Article 21; a paternity test on a child in the womb tests that promise at a woman's body.
Cover
- Maneka Gandhi (1978): procedure under Article 21 must be 'right and just and fair'; privacy grows from this reading.
- Dimensions: bodily integrity, informational privacy and decisional autonomy — reproductive choice (Suchita Srivastava, 2009); limits: legality, legitimate aim, proportionality (Puttaswamy).
- Presumption: birth during a valid marriage is conclusive proof of legitimacy unless non-access is shown — Section 112 Evidence Act, now Section 116 BSA.
- Courts: no 'roving inquiry'; DNA tests only on a strong prima facie case and 'eminent need' (Goutam Kundu 1993; Bhabani Prasad Jena 2010).
- Aparna Ajinkya Firodia (2023): DNA tests not on a routine basis; children's right not to have legitimacy questioned frivolously.
- Foetus: prenatal sampling is invasive; the woman's consent and bodily autonomy are central, so courts rarely compel it; foetal tissue preserved after lawful termination in rape cases.
- Safeguard: the PCPNDT Act bars prenatal sex determination.
Close with · Testing an unborn child for paternity must pass Puttaswamy's proportionality test — the woman's consent or indispensable need — so truth-seeking never overrides her bodily autonomy or the child's identity.
Add value (verified)
- Maneka Gandhi (1978) read Article 21 with Article 14: procedure must be fair and non-arbitrary.Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), Supreme Court — Indian Kanoon ↗“It must be right and just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.”
- Goutam Kundu (1993): courts must not order blood tests for a roving inquiry.Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993), Supreme Court — Indian Kanoon ↗“Wherever applications are made for blood group test in order to have roving inquiry, the prayer cannot be entertained.”
- Aparna Ajinkya Firodia (2023): DNA tests are not routine; children have a right not to have their legitimacy questioned frivolously.Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, Supreme Court judgment of 20 February 2023 ↗“DNA tests are not to be directed on a routine basis, merely to enable a party to prove his case of adultery. The right of children not to have their legitimacy questioned frivolously in Courts of Law”
- The same judgment records Goutam Kundu's 'eminent need' test.Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia, Supreme Court judgment of 20 February 2023 ↗“That the respondent had failed to satisfy the test of “eminent need” as laid down by this Court in Goutam Kundu vs. State of West Bengal, (1993) 3 SCC 418”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2024, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 368words · Minimalist IAS
In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) a nine-judge bench held privacy to be intrinsic to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and to the freedoms in Part III. A paternity test on a child in the womb tests that promise at its most intimate point: a woman's body.
Why privacy is intrinsic to life and liberty
- Fair procedure: Maneka Gandhi (1978) held that any procedure under Article 21 must be 'right and just and fair', not arbitrary; privacy grew from this reading.
- Three dimensions: bodily integrity, informational privacy and decisional autonomy, including reproductive choice recognised in Suchita Srivastava (2009).
- Dignity: without control over one's body, data and choices, life loses dignity; privacy is part of life itself, not a gift of statute.
- Limits: any intrusion must pass legality, a legitimate aim and proportionality, the Puttaswamy test.
Law on DNA testing of a child in the womb
- Presumption of legitimacy: a child born during a valid marriage is conclusive proof of legitimacy unless non-access is shown — Section 112 of the Evidence Act, now Section 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
- No roving inquiry: in Goutam Kundu (1993) the Supreme Court refused tests sought for a 'roving inquiry', demanded 'eminent need', and asked courts to weigh the stigma a test could cast on child and mother.
- Balancing: Bhabani Prasad Jena (2010) required courts to weigh the parties' interests against the privacy a test invades.
- Child's own privacy: in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia (2023) the Court held DNA tests are 'not to be directed on a routine basis' and recognised children's right not to have their legitimacy questioned frivolously.
- The unborn child: prenatal sampling is invasive and risky; the woman's informed consent and bodily autonomy are central, so courts rarely compel it.
- Practice and safeguards: in rape-related pregnancies courts preserve foetal tissue after lawful termination; the PCPNDT Act bars any slide into sex determination.
- Presumption of legitimacy (Section 116 BSA)
- Strong case of non-access
- 'Eminent need' shown
- Woman's consent, child's interest
- Test only if indispensable
Testing an unborn child for paternity must pass Puttaswamy's proportionality test: ordered only with the woman's consent or on indispensable need, so truth-seeking never overrides her bodily autonomy or the child's identity.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
