Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Thursday, December 19, 2024

Kerala HC Lays Down Guidelines For DNA Test Of Children Born To Rape Victims And Given In Adoption

Posted in: medico Legal
Wed, Apr 24, 24, 11:48, 9 Months ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 9760
Suo Moto vs State of Kerala that DNA examination of children born to rape victims who are given in adoption may cause emotional imbalance and violate their right to privacy and hence Courts shall not entertain DNA examinations of such children.

While ruling on a very significant legal point pertaining to the DNA test of children, the Kerala High Court in a most pragmatic, persuasive, progressive, path breaking and pertinent judgment titled Suo Moto vs State of Kerala in Criminal M.C No.5136 of 2023 that was pronounced as recently as on April 19, 2024 has minced just no words to hold unswervingly that DNA examination of children born to rape victims who are given in adoption may cause emotional imbalance and violate their right to privacy and hence Courts shall not entertain DNA examinations of such children. It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice K Babu also plainly held that the DNA examination of adopted children would also defeat the sanctity of adoption. We thus see that the Court set aside various orders passed by the Special Courts for collecting blood samples of adopted children for trying offence of rape and other cases under the POCSO Act. The matter has now been posted for further hearing on May 27, 2024.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice K Babu of Kerala High Court at Ernakulam sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been registered suo motu based on the report of the Project Co-ordinator, Victims Rights Centre, the Kerala State Legal Services Authority.

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that:
The report of the Project Co-ordinator points to the glaring conflicts of law relating to a sensitive and vulnerable issue touching the privacy of the children given in adoption. The various Courts in Kerala issued orders on the applications preferred by the prosecution to collect DNA of children born to rape victims. The report of the Project Co-ordinator indicates that such orders conflict with Regulation 48 of the Adoption Regulations, 2022 issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (c) of Section 68 read with Clause (3) of Section 2 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ‘the J.J Act’) which deals with the confidentiality of records to be maintained in the case of adopted children by all agencies and authorities involved.

Needless to say, the Bench stipulates in para 3 that:
The issue involved is the legality and the adverse impact on the adopted children and the respective families following the issuance of orders by the competent Courts to collect DNA of children born to rape victims and given in adoption on the applications preferred by the prosecution to strengthen the case of rape.

While citing a recent, remarkable and relevant Apex Court ruling, the Bench observes in para 15 that:
Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia [2023 SCC OnLine SC 161], was a case wherein the parents were fighting in divorce proceedings. DNA was sought for. The Supreme Court held that only in exceptional and deserving cases, where such a test becomes indispensable to resolve the controversy, the Court can direct such a test.

While citing a recent and relevant case law, the Bench hastens to add in para 20 that:
In Dilesh Nishad v. State of Chhattisgarh (MANU/CG/1664/2023), the Chhattisgarh High Court held that ascertaining the paternity of the victim's child is not at all required and directing for DNA test of the child of the victim would violate the privacy right of the infant, which is a constitutionally protected right.

While citing yet another relevant and recent case law, the Bench points out in para 21 that:
In Surender Vijay Paswan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.,(2023:BHC-AS:34959), the Bombay High Court while considering an application filed by the Investigating officer in a rape case seeking permission to collect DNA sample of the victim’s child who was already given in adoption held that DNA test of the child may not be in the interest of the child.

Most remarkably, the Bench propounds in para 23 that:
Regulation 39 mandates that the Child Welfare Committee has to collect the DNA sample to avoid undue harassment to the families who adopt the children. This indicates that in an extreme case of necessity, the prosecution has an option to get the DNA sample.

The Conclusions

 

  1. Where blood samples are ordered to be collected for DNA tests from adopted children after they were given in adoption, it may imbalance their emotional status, which will only defeat the purpose of the divine concept of adoption.
  2. Rape as defined in Section 375 IPC and penetrative sexual assault as defined in the POCSO Act do not demand the paternity of the child born to rape victims to be proved to establish the offence. When there is a conflict between the right to privacy of a person not to submit himself forcefully to medical examination and the duty of the Court to reach the truth, the Court must exercise its discretion only after balancing the interest of the parties and on due consideration whether for a just decision in the matter, DNA test is essentially needed.
  3. All agencies or authorities involved in the adoption process are bound to ensure that the confidentiality of adoption records is maintained except as permitted under any other law for the time being in force and for such purpose, the adoption order shall not be displayed on any public portal.
  4. The Child Welfare Committee has a statutory duty to collect DNA samples of children given in adoption before the completion of the process of adoption.
  5. Even in cases where the children were not given in adoption, in a rape case or cases coming under the POCSO Act, the request for a DNA test of the child of the victim need to be considered on the touchstone of the principle of eminent need and doctrine of proportionality.


Most significantly, what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment is then laid bare in para 24 wherein it is postulated and mandated about the guidelines putting forth that:
Therefore, the following guidelines are issued:

  1. The Courts shall not entertain applications seeking DNA examination of children given in adoption.
  2. The Child Welfare Committee shall see that the DNA samples of children given in adoption are taken before the completion of the process of adoption.
  3. All agencies or authorities involved in the adoption process shall ensure that the confidentiality of adoption records is maintained except as permitted under any other law for the time being in force.
  4. Even in cases where the children were not given in adoption, the Court shall consider the request for a DNA test of the children of the victim only after assessing the principle of eminent need and doctrine of proportionality.

Do note, the Bench notes in para 25 that:
The Fast Track Special Court, Manjeri as per order dated 31.08.2021 in Crl.M.P No.210/2021 in S.C No.603/2017 ordered a further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.PC in a case alleging offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376(2)(f) of IPC and Sections 5(j), 5(j)(ii) and 5(l) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 holding that analysis of the blood sample of the child to prove the paternity is required.

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 26 that:
The Special Court for the Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Kattappana as per order dated 05.08.2022 in Crl.M.P No.693/2022 in S.C No.1/2018 directed the Kerala State Adoption Resource Agency to furnish details of the child born to a rape victim for facilitating collection of blood samples from the child.

It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 27 that:
The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ramankary as per order dated 03.11.2022 in Crl.M.P No.2914/2022 directed the taking of blood sample of the child who was given in adoption. The Additional Sessions Court-I, Kollam as per order dated 17.11.2022 in S.C No.857/2017 directed the Member Secretary of the Kerala State Adoption Resource Agency to furnish necessary details of the child of the victim for facilitating collection of blood sample of the child. The Sessions Court, Palakkad Division as per order dated 19.05.2023 in Crl.M.C No.2077/2023 in S.C No.91/2015 directed the Member Secretary of the Kerala State Adoption Resource Agency to furnish the details of the child of the victim given in adoption for facilitating collection of blood samples of the child.

Finally and as a corollary, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 28 that, In view of the conclusions arrived at above, the impugned orders are not sustainable. Therefore, the order dated 31.08.2021 in Crl.M.P No.210/2021 in S.C No.603/2017 of the Fast Track Special Court, Manjeri, the order dated 05.08.2022 in Crl.M.P No.693/2022 in S.C No.1/2018 of the Special Court for the Trial of Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Kattappana, the order dated 03.11.2022 in Crl.M.P No.2914/2022 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ramankary, the order dated 17.11.2022 in S.C No.857/2017 of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kollam and the order dated 19.05.2023 in Crl.M.C No.2077/2023 in S.C No.91/2015 of the Sessions Court, Palakkad Division stand quashed. Post the Criminal M.C for further hearing on 27.05.2024.

In sum, what we can thus reasonably deduce from the above brief discussion is that the guidelines that have been laid down so succinctly by the Kerala High Court for the DNA test of children born to the rape victims and given in adoption must be definitely implemented strictly in letter and spirit. There can be definitely just no gainsaying that it is the bounden duty of the Courts to ensure that what the Kerala High Court has directed in this leading case is implemented in totality most strictly and not allowed to be observed in the breach on any pretext! No denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
In 1929 Parliament perceived the need to qualify the child destruction. statute by a provision for preserving the life of the mother, but crassly failed to add a similar exception to the abortion section In 1861
When the Abortion Bill came before the House of Lords, much attention was given to this question.
Formerly it was thought that the vital point of time was fertilisation, the fusior of spermatozoon and ovum, but it is now realised
the paper intends to highlight the need for a concrete legal framework in reference to the recent developments to protect the rights of parties involved in the commercial surrogacy.
This article deals with the introduction of corona virus and it's legal aspects & some laws related to it in India.
incidents of manhandling of Covid patients/dead bodies. What is even more tragic to learn is that this is happening more with those patients who are not able to cough up huge astronomical sum of money as demanded by the hospitals where they are admitted
Ganta Jai Kumar v/s Telangana a medical emergency is not an excuse to trample on the fundamental rights of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution.
dehumanizing treatment of the Covid-19 patients and dead bodies in the hospitals etc after watching it live in India TV news channel as also other news channels especially of LNJP hospital in Delhi which has shaken the whole country beyond belief.
Supreme Court went ahead to allow a woman bearing 25 weeks old twin pregnancy, to undergo procedure for foetal reduction on the grounds of serious foetal abnormalities
Own Motion vs State Of NCT Of Delhi after taking suo motu cognizance of the grievances faced by a citizen
Abdul Shoeb Shaikh v/s K.J. Somaiya Hospital that a person suffering from Covid-19 who belongs to the economically weaker section of the society cannot be expected to produce documentary proof before seeking admission in a hospital for free treatment
Ketan Tirodkar v/s Maharashtra dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) alleging negligence in management of dead bodies of Covid-19 victims by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Karnajit De vs. Tripura Doctors are the first line defence of the country in the fight against the corona virus. It directed the Government to restore the confidence of the Doctors and para-medical staff and all concerned who are sacrificing their lives to fight against the pandemic.
Medipol Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research considerable unexplained delay on the part of drug authorities to test a sample can render any penalty under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, based upon the said analysis of the sample as void.
Bikash Duria vs State of Orissa Instances of drug abuse is required to be dealt with a strict hard on Crime attitude. It was made clear that the NDPS cases should always be dealt with stricter approach of No Tolerance
Own Motion Vs. UOI safety issues faced by the general public due to the non-availability of ventilators and oxygenated beds for Coronavirus patients with moderate and severe conditions in order to reduce the death rate in Nagpur.
Jeet Ram vs. Narcotics Control Bureau Section 50 of the NDPS Act is applicable only in the case of personal search. This the Supreme Court has reiterated unambiguously while affirming the conviction of an accused who was a temple priest.
Hemant Kumar Vs Himachal Pradesh A medical officer who remains willfully absent from duty, is guilty of mis-conduct and punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be a harsh punishment.
RM Arun Swaminathan Vs The Principal Secretary to the Government if the autopsy reports are prepared in a shabby and unscientific manner and without actual performance of autopsies by doctors, it will lead to collapse of criminal justice delivery system in the country.
Tofan Singh vs Tamil Nadu by a 2:1 majority with Justice Indira Banerjee dissenting that officers of the Central and State agencies appointed under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
VetIndia Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. Uttar Pradesh set aside an indefinite blacklisting order issued in the year 2009 against VetIndia Pharmaceuticals Limited.
We all keep hearing the old adages like Where woman is worshipped, God resides there and When you educate a man you educate an individual but when you educate a woman you educate the entire family so on
Dr AKB Sadbhavana Mission School Of Homeo Pharmacy vs The Secretary, Ministry Of AYUSH has minced no words to clarify that homeopathy can be used in preventing and mitigating Covid-19 as per AYUSH ministry guidelines. Thus some observations made by the Kerala High Court were modified on this score
To Curb The Increasing Menace Of Drug Abuse vs Kerala directions to control drug abuse among youngsters and students in educational institutions.
Gurdev Singh v/s Punjab quantity of narcotic substance is a relevant factor that can be taken into account for imposing higher than the minimum punishment under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Patan Jamal Vali vs Andhra Pradesh taken the bold initiative to issue guidelines to make criminal justice system more disabled friendly.
Uttar Pradesh vs In Re: Inhuman Condition At Quarantine Centres And For Providing Better Treatment To Corona Positive upgrading the medical facilities in the state of Uttar Pradesh on a war-scale footing
Vivek Sheel Aggarwal vs UOI It is not for the Court to render advice much less issue directions to the Government on the line of treatment that is required to be followed for COVID
Tripura, Agartala v. UOI, wherein it has directed the Central Government, Ministry of Home Affairs to take appropriate steps for amending Section 27A of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 without further delay.
Sonu Bairwa Vs State of MP & Ors black marketing of remdesivir injection has direct impact on public order, and the petitioner-accused if released, could indulge into same activity because the scarcity of remdesivir is still there.
Not permitting a rape victim, suffering from severe mental problems, to undergo Medical Termination of unwarranted pregnancy would be violative of her bodily integrity which would not only aggravate her mental trauma but would also have devastating effect on her overall health including on psychological and mental aspects.
Jose Luis Quintanilla Sacristan vs UP since a report of State Forensic Science Laboratory is admissible in evidence (as per the provision of Section 293 CrPC), therefore, there is no requirement to call the Director of that laboratory to get the same proved.
Radhakrishna Pillai v. District Level Authorization Committee for transplantation of Human Organs, Ernakulam criminal antecedents of a person cannot be criteria when it comes to organ donation and the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 do not make any such distinction against persons with criminal record.
doctors themselves as also the hospital staff are themselves not safe in our country and are abused, attacked and assaulted by some disgruntled attendants of patients
Ashok Kumar vs Raj Gupta that forcing an unwilling party to undergo DNA test impinges on personal liberty and right to privacy.
Aryan Khan left his home in Mumbai's Bandra to attend a party on board Cordelia Cruises' Empress ship. A two-day 'musical voyage' had been organized by a Delhi-based events company.
Dr.P Basumani vs The Tamil Nadu Medical Council the Madras High Court quashed an order dated May 4, 2021 of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council (TNMC) suspending a gastroenterologist by observing that principles of natural justice were not given credence to.
All India Kamgar General Union vs Union of India Delhi High Court has issued detailed directives to Central Government Hospitals to ensure that no improper and corrupt practices are indulged in by the contractors in respect of engagement of contractual workmen.
Jasmeet Singh Hakimzada vs National Investigation Agency refused to quash an NIA case against Jasmeet Singh Hakimzada, who is allegedly a Dubai-based international drug smuggler, by taking into account the allegations against him of reviving terrorism in the State of Punjab
Mohd Zahid vs State through NCB discretion to direct subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence has to be exercised judiciously depending upon the nature of offences committed.
PD Gupta vs Delhi it expects a little more sensitivity from the Delhi Government when it is dealing with claims for reimbursement of medical expenses of senior citizens who are their own retired employees.
Sandeep Kumar v. Punjab Police on their knuckles for their callously casual approach towards their official duty even when the drug menace has become a deep-rooted in the state of Punjab.
Dr. (Mrs.) Chanda Rani Akhouri Vs Dr MA Methusethupathi in exercise of its civil appellate jurisdiction delivered as recently as on April 20, 2022 has laid down in no uncertain terms that merely because doctors could not save the patient
The National Medical Commission vs Pooja Thandu Naresh that the National Medical Commission is not bound to grant provisional registration to the student who has not completed the entire duration of the course from the Foreign Institute including the clinical training.
Aravinth RA vs Secretary To Government Of India Ministry Of Health upheld the validity of Regulations 4(a)(ii), 4(b) & 4(c) of the National Medical Commission (Foreign Medical Graduate Licentiate) Regulations 2021, Schedule II 2(a) and 2(c)(i) of the National Medical Commission
State v. Sheikh Sehzad has released an accused charged under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act on interim bail while observing that every millisecond of unnecessary detention makes a substantial difference and tantamount to an unwarranted interference with the rights of the accused.
Mohan Singh vs UP allowed the conduct of DNA test in a murder trial as it noted that the same was in the interests of justice to unearth the truthfulness of the prosecution's case.
Farooq Ahmad Bhat Vs Syed Basharat Saleem that before prosecuting medical professionals for the offence of criminal negligence, a Criminal Court should obtain opinion of the medical expert
Inayath Ali v/s Telangana allowing DNA testing to determine the paternity of two children to verify a claim made by their mother that she had been forced to cohabit and develop a physical relationship with her brother-in-law.
Davinder Singh Vs Punjab that the drug peddlers have successfully destroyed the social fabric of society and led youth to the wrongful path.
Top