{"id":17677,"date":"2026-03-23T11:08:34","date_gmt":"2026-03-23T11:08:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=17677"},"modified":"2026-03-23T11:15:52","modified_gmt":"2026-03-23T11:15:52","slug":"article-116-bsa-dna-evidence-why-indias-paternity-law-needs-urgent-reform","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/article-116-bsa-dna-evidence-why-indias-paternity-law-needs-urgent-reform\/","title":{"rendered":"Article 116 BSA &amp; DNA Evidence: Why India\u2019s Paternity Law Needs Urgent Reform"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"introduction\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Article 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023<\/strong> provides that a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage, or within 280 days of its dissolution (provided the mother remains unmarried), shall be conclusively presumed to be the legitimate child of the husband. The presumption may be rebutted only by proving that the spouses had no access to each other at the time when the child could have been conceived.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_83 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/article-116-bsa-dna-evidence-why-indias-paternity-law-needs-urgent-reform\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/article-116-bsa-dna-evidence-why-indias-paternity-law-needs-urgent-reform\/#Argument_for_Reform\" >Argument for Reform<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/article-116-bsa-dna-evidence-why-indias-paternity-law-needs-urgent-reform\/#Why_the_Law_Relied_on_Presumption\" >Why the Law Relied on Presumption<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/article-116-bsa-dna-evidence-why-indias-paternity-law-needs-urgent-reform\/#Modern_Scientific_Advancements\" >Modern Scientific Advancements<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/article-116-bsa-dna-evidence-why-indias-paternity-law-needs-urgent-reform\/#Judicial_Trend_and_Problem_of_Rigid_Interpretation\" >Judicial Trend and Problem of Rigid Interpretation<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/article-116-bsa-dna-evidence-why-indias-paternity-law-needs-urgent-reform\/#A_Fascinating_Contrast_with_Criminal_Law\" >A Fascinating Contrast with Criminal Law<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/article-116-bsa-dna-evidence-why-indias-paternity-law-needs-urgent-reform\/#185_Law_Commission_of_India_Report_A_Missed_Opportunity\" >185 Law Commission of India Report A Missed Opportunity<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/article-116-bsa-dna-evidence-why-indias-paternity-law-needs-urgent-reform\/#Global_Relevance\" >Global Relevance<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/article-116-bsa-dna-evidence-why-indias-paternity-law-needs-urgent-reform\/#Key_Features_Of_UPA_Approach\" >Key Features Of U.P.A Approach<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/article-116-bsa-dna-evidence-why-indias-paternity-law-needs-urgent-reform\/#The_Way_Forward\" >The Way Forward<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/article-116-bsa-dna-evidence-why-indias-paternity-law-needs-urgent-reform\/#Expand_Scope_Of_Rebuttal\" >Expand Scope Of Rebuttal<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/article-116-bsa-dna-evidence-why-indias-paternity-law-needs-urgent-reform\/#Judicial_Safeguards\" >Judicial Safeguards<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/article-116-bsa-dna-evidence-why-indias-paternity-law-needs-urgent-reform\/#Limitation_Period\" >Limitation Period<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/article-116-bsa-dna-evidence-why-indias-paternity-law-needs-urgent-reform\/#Impact_Of_Reforms\" >Impact Of Reforms<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/article-116-bsa-dna-evidence-why-indias-paternity-law-needs-urgent-reform\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/article-116-bsa-dna-evidence-why-indias-paternity-law-needs-urgent-reform\/#Summary_Table\" >Summary Table<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/article-116-bsa-dna-evidence-why-indias-paternity-law-needs-urgent-reform\/#References\" >References<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/article-116-bsa-dna-evidence-why-indias-paternity-law-needs-urgent-reform\/#Statutes\" >Statutes<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/article-116-bsa-dna-evidence-why-indias-paternity-law-needs-urgent-reform\/#Reports\" >Reports<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/article-116-bsa-dna-evidence-why-indias-paternity-law-needs-urgent-reform\/#Case_Law_India\" >Case Law (India)<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p>The question of who the law recognizes as a child\u2019s father is not just a mere question of fact. It has deep impact as it shapes family relationship, social identity, inheritance, and lifelong responsibilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This question is governed by Section 116 of the BSA, which is akin to Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This provision assumes that a child born during a valid marriage is the legitimate child of the husband and only ground to challenge this presumption is by proving non\u2013access at the time of conception.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This rule was very great at the time of enactment as it protected children from social stigma in an era when science was not so much advanced so it can be used to determine paternity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"argument-for-reform\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Argument_for_Reform\"><\/span>Argument for Reform<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>This article argues that Article 116 must be reformed \u2013 not by abolishing the marital presumption, but by expanding the grounds of rebuttal to include scientifically reliable DNA evidence, subject to strict judicial safeguards and a limitation on period to challenge it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A conclusive presumption that ignores reliable genetic evidence risks transforming a protective legal fiction into an instrument of injustice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"why-the-law-relied-on-presumption\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Why_the_Law_Relied_on_Presumption\"><\/span>Why the Law Relied on Presumption<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The presumption of legitimacy was not baseless. At the time of the enactment there was no scientific method with accuracy to determine biological paternity, so the law opted for certainty over speculation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Principle Applied:<\/strong> <em>Pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant<\/em> \u2013 the father is the man whom the marriage indicates.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Objective:<\/strong> To keep families intact and protect children from bastardy.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Judicial Approach:<\/strong> Indian courts in most scenarios relied on family stability rather than biological accuracy.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>This approach sounded reasonable in earlier times. However, the time has now changed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"modern-scientific-advancements\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Modern_Scientific_Advancements\"><\/span>Modern Scientific Advancements<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Modern testing methods like DNA can exclude or confirm paternity with an accuracy exceeding 99.9 percent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Aspect<\/th><th>Earlier Legal Position<\/th><th>Modern Reality<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Basis of Determination<\/td><td>Presumption of marriage<\/td><td>Scientific DNA testing<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Accuracy<\/td><td>Uncertain \/ Assumptive<\/td><td>More than 99.9% accurate<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Judicial Focus<\/td><td>Family stability<\/td><td>Truth + fairness + rights<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Neglecting evidence derived from such methods with great accuracy is a matter of caution which should be looked on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"judicial-trend-rigid-interpretation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Trend_and_Problem_of_Rigid_Interpretation\"><\/span>Judicial Trend and Problem of Rigid Interpretation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Despite the scientific evolution, judicial interpretation of section 116 of the B.S.A has remained remarkably rigid. Courts are inclined to the only available presumption of rebuttal i.e. non access which should be clearly established, even neglecting the D.N.A evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As stated by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of \u201cKamti Devi v. Posh Ram ,2001\u201d the Supreme Court reaffirmed that scientific evidence solely cannot displace presumption unless non \u2013 access is proved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Scientific evidence alone is insufficient<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Non-access must be clearly established<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>D.N.A evidence may be overlooked<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Even impotency is also a not a ground for rebuttable [but many jurisdictions like the English law, and our neighbor country Sri Lanka has added impotency].<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While latter cases like \u201cNandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik, 2014\u201d case recognized the evidentiary value of the data derived from D.N.A testing, so section 116 also acts like a rule that have very limited grounds to be rebut.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As per the provision a person may be declared a legal father of a child despite of clear scientific evidence rejecting the paternity simply because non \u2013 access is hard to prove.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"contrast-with-criminal-law\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"A_Fascinating_Contrast_with_Criminal_Law\"><\/span>A Fascinating Contrast with Criminal Law<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The extent of rigidity of article 116 becomes more striking when compared with presumptions in criminal law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Statues like Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 comprises presumptions. Yet these presumptions arise post proving of basic facts and they are open to rebuttal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Aspect<\/th><th>Section 116 (B.S.A)<\/th><th>Criminal Law Presumptions<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Grounds for Rebuttal<\/td><td>Very Narrow (Non-Access)<\/td><td>Broader and Flexible<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Role of Scientific Evidence<\/td><td>Limited Impact<\/td><td>Considered Alongside Facts<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Standard of Proof<\/td><td>Rigid Presumption<\/td><td>Based on Proved Facts<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>We cannot overlook the fact that criminal law operates in matter relating to severe punishment, including years of imprisonment, which affect the liberty of the individual, so chances of rebuttal is needed for a fair trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In comparison , Section 116 allows very narrow ground of rebuttal , and we cannot ignore the fact there it is a civil matter so no harsh punishment is given but it also have lifelong consequences like fatherhood , succession which can should be dealt with caution as if one is forced to fatherhood it might just look good on paper but in reality the child will never be treated the same so child welfare which is the backbone of the section is hampered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"law-commission-185-report\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"185_Law_Commission_of_India_Report_A_Missed_Opportunity\"><\/span>185 Law Commission of India Report A Missed Opportunity<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The 185th Report of the Law Commission of India identified the strictness of section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act [ now section 116 of the B.S.A] as it was shaped by a time when reliable and accurate science tools was not available which is not a problem in today\u2019s time where science has so much evolved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Report challenged this square notion of presumption in today time and advocated for adding more grounds of rebuttal like including impotency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Inclusion of impotency as a ground<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Recognition of blood test evidence<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Acceptance of D.N.A test results<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Because impotency is a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955 section 12[1][a] , and in the case Digvijay Singh v Pratap Kumari 1970 divorce was granted due to impotency , as well as blood test and D.N.A test to cope up with modern times.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This recommendation was carefully examined to maintain a balance between child welfare and inclusion of scientific techniques.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"global-relevance\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Global_Relevance\"><\/span>Global Relevance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Uniform Parentage Act [U.S.A] provides a useful comparative model to analyze Article 116 of the B.S.A by demonstrating how scientific methods can be integrated without undermining child welfare. The U.P.A also recognizes a marital presumption of paternity, but it also allows rebuttal through genetic testing on multiple grounds, with proper scientific standards, like only those tests to be accepted which has 99 percent of probability, combined paternity index 100 to 1, which shows that benchmark is high enough so that no false paternity case arise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It also prescribes a limitation period of 2 years for adjudication of paternity; this is the thing which we should inculcate in our law also as in India paternity dispute arises in many cases at the time of divorce [like in case of Dukh Tar Johon v. Mohd. Farooq 1987]. Courts can simultaneously if they feel that allowing D.N.A test will hamper the child welfare, they can refuse it also for the well-being of the child.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>So, U.P.A and Family Law Reform Act of the U.K is a proper example demonstrating that how a balanced approach can accommodate scientific methods while preserving family stability and still serving the best interest of the child.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-features-upa\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Features_Of_UPA_Approach\"><\/span>Key Features Of U.P.A Approach<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Recognition of marital presumption of paternity<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Rebuttal allowed through genetic testing<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Strict scientific benchmarks (99% probability, CPI 100:1)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Limitation period of 2 years for paternity disputes<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Judicial discretion to refuse DNA tests for child welfare<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"the-way-forward\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Way_Forward\"><\/span>The Way Forward<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>A meaningful reform of Article 116 does not require abandoning the marital presumption of legitimacy. The presumption should continue as it acts like a shield protecting children from social stigma. However, it should be flexible regarding acceptance of scientific evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"expand-scope-of-rebuttal\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Expand_Scope_Of_Rebuttal\"><\/span>Expand Scope Of Rebuttal<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Firstly, the scope of rebuttal should be expanded beyond the proof of non\u2013access. Courts should be empowered to consider scientifically reliable methods like DNA evidence, where there exists a prima facie case. The presumptions must be strong but should not always undermine biological truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"judicial-safeguards\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Safeguards\"><\/span>Judicial Safeguards<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Secondly, these reforms must be inculcated with strict measures like genetic testing should be ordered only upon furnishing prior judicial authorization, recording reasons in depth, and also showing that it will not affect the welfare of the child adversely. Courts should also have the authority to refuse testing when it seems that welfare of the child will not be upheld.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"limitation-period\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Limitation_Period\"><\/span>Limitation Period<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Thirdly, a mandatory introduction of limitation period to challenge paternity like two years which is mentioned in UPA Act, so that only genuine proceedings succeed, not those which is driven from any malicious intention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"impact-of-reforms\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Impact_Of_Reforms\"><\/span>Impact Of Reforms<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Preservation of legitimacy presumption<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Prevention of misuse through malicious claims<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Integration of scientific truth with legal principles<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Protection of child welfare<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>These reforms will preserve the foundational pillars of Section 116 of the BSA. They would also ensure that the law does not compel adherence to a legal fiction where there is a conclusive proof.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"conclusion\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Article 116 of the BSA was enacted to protect children\u2019s interests in an era when reliable scientific methods were unavailable. That protective purpose continues to remain relevant today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, the continued insistence on proof of non\u2013access as the sole ground of rebuttal does not align with the contemporary scientific advancements. With DNA testing offering near certain accuracy, the law should not treat the presumption as irrebuttable where clear biological evidence is there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Reform should not abolish presumption but should refine it. A balanced approach \u2013 allowing DNA evidence under strict judicial safeguards and within a limited time period \u2013 can simultaneously preserve child welfare and prevent injustice. The law must evolve to ensure that legal fiction does not override the biological truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"summary-table\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Summary_Table\"><\/span>Summary Table<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Aspect<\/th><th>Current Position<\/th><th>Proposed Reform<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Presumption of Legitimacy<\/td><td>Strong and conclusive<\/td><td>Retained but flexible<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Rebuttal Grounds<\/td><td>Proof of non-access only<\/td><td>Include DNA evidence<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Scientific Evidence<\/td><td>Limited acceptance<\/td><td>Allowed with safeguards<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Limitation Period<\/td><td>Not defined<\/td><td>2 years (as in UPA)<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Child Welfare<\/td><td>Primary concern<\/td><td>Continues as paramount consideration<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"references\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"References\"><\/span>References<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"statutes\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Statutes\"><\/span>Statutes<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Article 116.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 112.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 12(1)(a).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 29\u201330.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Uniform Parentage Act, 2000 (USA).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Family Law Reform Act, 1969 (United Kingdom).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"reports\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reports\"><\/span>Reports<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Law Commission of India, 185th Report on the Review of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (2003).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>URL: https:\/\/lawcommissionofindia.nic.in\/reports\/185threport.pdf<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"case-law-india\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Law_India\"><\/span>Case Law (India)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram (2001).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2014).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Digvijay Singh v. Pratap Kumari (1970).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq (1987).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Written By: Aryan Verma <\/strong>&#8211; 3rd Year Law Student [J.G.LS.]<br>Email Id: neetuver25@gamil.com<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction Article 116 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides that a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage, or within 280 days of its dissolution (provided the mother remains unmarried), shall be conclusively presumed to be the legitimate child of the husband. The presumption may be rebutted only by proving that the<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1289,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[342,28],"class_list":{"0":"post-17677","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-family-law","7":"tag-family-law","8":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17677","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1289"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17677"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17677\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17677"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17677"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17677"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}