In current times of scientific advancement and ever-developing technologies, the legal system is posed

with many serious challenges and dilemmas. Scientific evidences have accurate fact-finding results
without uncertainties, which may accompany and improve legal decision-making. However there are
fundamental differences between legal and scientific processes. Hence ensuring justice becomes a dicey
job if the scientific evidences do not find statutory recognition or support (according to the written law).
Sec. 112 of Indian Evidence Act and DNA testing is one of such paradoxes. There are 3 kinds of
presumption as envisaged in Sec 4 of the Evidence Act- ‘May Presume’, ‘shall Presume’ and ‘Conclusive
Proof’. Section 41, 112 and 113 are the only sections in the entire Evidence act which talk about
‘conclusive proof’. Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik is a landmark case where for the
first time the Supreme court acknowledged that in case of conflict between presumption under sec. 112
and an accurate DNA test result, the latter will prevail over the former.

To conclude, As far as the issue of legitimacy and the child is concerned, we have already emphasized
that that we need to erase this difference as it presupposes that there are right ways and wrong ways to
bring a child into this world. Then it cloaks every child in the same way- as a legitimate child for their
welfare. Undoubtedly that the intentions behind making this law were quite noble but the law itself is
antithetical to its purpose. It proliferates the message that illegitimate children are somehow at a
disadvantage and thus must be protected. Once the law stops feeding this belief , society will also adjust
itself.

Since the law has been interpreted in various ways by the court, it is quite fascinating to observe how
they have introduced the dimension of DNA testing in the realm of this presumption. Initially, for the
lack of a better parallel, we treated blood group paternity tests and DNA tests with the same approach.
However, judiciary was keen to notice the difference and thus is where the aspect of ‘rebuttable
presumption’ came into picture. The court could just use existing mechanisms as outlined in the
Evidence act to better dispense justice. Subsequent application of section 114 (H) also becomes
important in the process of the determination of patermity.