Lahore:
By maintaining the decision of district courts, Lahore High Court (LHC) has rejected an application for the decision of a girl’s fatherhood through DNA testing to protect her dignity, privacy and protect her from emotional harm.
“The role of the court is not only to decide legal disputes, but also to protect human dignity, especially where the rights of a minor are involved,” LHC Justice Syed Ahsan Raza Kazmi observed by presenting over the Multan bench.
“When scientific tools such as DNA testing are used to resolve paternity issues, the court must act with caution. A child may not be able to speak for herself, but she still has constitutional rights such as the right to privacy, dignity and protection against emotional harm,” the judge observed.
“The law places the child’s welfare above all other concerns. Even if both parents agree on a DNA test, the court still has to consider whether such a test is in the best interest of the child,” Justice Kazmi declared.
Service Malik Hamid Raza had filed the application that sought DNA testing of the girl, citing long -term absence of cohabitation with her mother. The respondent woman had accepted the child’s test.
Nevertheless, the trial rejected the application on April 17.
The petitioner filed an appeal which was also rejected.
Then he challenged the orders before the LHC Multan bench.
Justice Kazmi noted that it is the consistent view of Pakistan’s Supreme Court that DNA tests cannot be performed in civilian affairs without the consent of parties. However, this case presented a unique configuration in which both the father (the petitioner) and the mother (respondent) had expressed the will for the girl to undergo a DNA test to determine the paternity.
The central question in this case was whether a court should order a DNA test of a minor to determine paternity when both parties had given their consent to determine fatherhood.
Given that the minor was unable to defend himself or give consent, it was imperative that the court exercised extra caution when dealing with cases of her welfare and interests.
The court must take a proactive and protective role to ensure that minor rights are protected and her best interests are prioritized, the court observed.
“Although the parents, as natural guardians, can generally give consent on behalf of a minor, this principle is not absolute. This court as well as the Supreme Court of Pakistan has stated in a number of cases that when a minor interests are at risk in litigation, the court can override parents’ consent if it notes that such consent is not in the best interest in the minor of the minor, although it means to make a parent, although it means that it means that it means that such Decisions and desires, ”observed Justice Kazmi.
“Use of DNA testing in litigation, especially in paternity cases, is a serious act that should not be carried out easily or at a mere request. It is not the availability of technology or consent of parties that only justify such a test, but whether its purpose really serves the ends of justice.
LHC stated that the district courts had rightly established that the application at this preliminary stage was too early, especially when evidence was not yet registered for the parties. Furthermore, it has now been well-off that DNA evidence is not decisive rather, it serves as affirmative evidence.
