DNA ruling

The Supreme Court's unequivocal rejection of compulsory DNA testing without consent is a welcome assertion of constitutional restraint; it should not be misconstrued as an argument for absolutism. The protection of privacy and bodily autonomy is essential, but so too is the pursuit of justice in cases where scientific evidence may be indispensable. A blanket rejection of DNA testing would be as problematic as its unchecked use.

There are situations where DNA evidence is not merely helpful but decisive — cases involving sexual violence, unidentified victims, missing persons or disputes where identity lies at the very heart of the matter. To deny investigators access to such evidence altogether would risk replacing one form of injustice with another. The challenge, therefore, is not whether DNA testing should ever be allowed, but under what conditions it may be lawfully compelled. That is where the Supreme Court's emphasis on due process assumes critical importance. Compulsion cannot flow from judicial discretion alone. It must be anchored in clear legislation and strict procedural safeguards.

Consent along with purpose limitation must form the backbone of any such framework. Without these, DNA testing becomes an instrument of coercion rather than justice. The way forward, therefore, lies in balance. Parliament must step in to define when DNA testing is permissible and what remedies exist in cases of misuse. Until such a framework exists, courts must tread carefully, authorising DNA tests only where necessity is compelling and legal authority unmistakable.

The Supreme Court has cautioned against overreach, and the next step now is to ensure that this caution does not harden into paralysis. Justice is best served not by blanket bans or unchecked powers, but by a principled equilibrium between individual rights and the rule of law.