1. Introduction

Compulsory Genome Accountability Governance refers to the legal and regulatory framework governing situations in which a government, court, healthcare institution, employer, research organisation, or other authorised body requires an individual to undergo genetic testing, disclose genomic information, provide a biological sample, or permit the use of genetic data for a specified purpose.

The term combines three important concepts:

1. Compulsory genome testing: The legally mandated collection or analysis of DNA or other genomic information.
2. Genome accountability: The obligation of authorities, laboratories, researchers, healthcare providers, and data controllers to justify their decisions and accept responsibility for unlawful or harmful genomic practices.
3. Genome governance: The rules, institutions, procedures, safeguards, and remedies that regulate genomic testing, storage, sharing, interpretation, and secondary use.

This is an emerging interdisciplinary concept rather than the name of a single, universally recognised legal doctrine. Its legal foundations are found in constitutional law, privacy and data protection, criminal procedure, family law, medical law, bioethics, research regulation, and intellectual property law.

The central legal question is: When, if ever, may the state or another institution compel a person to submit to genomic examination, and what accountability safeguards must apply?

The answer depends on the purpose of the test, the applicable legislation, the reliability of the scientific evidence, the rights of affected individuals, and the proportionality of the proposed interference.

In India, compulsory genomic testing must be examined particularly through the constitutional right to privacy, personal liberty, fair procedure, and the relevant statutory rules governing DNA evidence and personal data. International cases provide additional guidance, but foreign judgments are persuasive rather than automatically binding in Indian courts.

2. Meaning and Scope of Compulsory Genome Accountability Governance

A. Compulsory genome testing

Compulsory genome testing involves requiring a person to provide biological material or undergo a genetic examination without relying exclusively on that person's voluntary participation.

Examples include:

• DNA testing ordered by a court to determine disputed parentage.
• DNA profiling during a criminal investigation.
• Genetic testing required by a lawfully established public-health programme.
• Identification of disaster victims through DNA analysis.
• Legally authorised testing involving unidentified human remains.
• Genetic examination connected with the identification of biological relatives in a specific legal proceeding.

These situations must be distinguished from compulsory disclosure of an entire genomic sequence.

A DNA test intended to establish whether a particular person contributed biological material to a crime is different from whole-genome sequencing that could reveal inherited disease risks, ancestry, familial relationships, and other highly personal information.

A legal power to obtain a DNA sample does not automatically establish an unrestricted power to sequence, retain, analyse, or distribute the person's entire genome.

B. Genome accountability

Genome accountability concerns whether the individuals and institutions exercising genomic powers can explain and defend their conduct.

It requires answers to questions such as:

• Who authorised the test?
• What law permits the collection?
• What purpose does the examination serve?
• Is the test scientifically reliable?
• Was the collection proportionate to the objective?
• Who can access the resulting information?
• How long may the sample and data be retained?
• Can an affected person challenge the decision?
• What remedy is available if the information is misused?

Accountability is not satisfied merely because an institution possesses a valid licence or follows an internal policy. The legality, necessity, fairness, and consequences of the particular exercise of power must also be considered.

C. Genome governance

Genome governance establishes the institutional framework through which genomic information is managed.

Its principal components include:

1. Legal authorisation and limits on compulsory testing.
2. Independent or judicial review where appropriate.
3. Scientific validation and quality assurance.
4. Privacy and information-security safeguards.
5. Restrictions on secondary use and disclosure.
6. Documentation, audit trails, and reasoned decisions.
7. Protection against discrimination.
8. Complaint procedures and effective remedies.

Together, these elements form a proposed analytical framework for evaluating compulsory genomic practices.

3. Constitutional Foundations of Compulsory Genome Governance in India

A. Article 21: Right to life, personal liberty, and privacy

Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects life and personal liberty. Its interpretation includes privacy, bodily autonomy, dignity, and protection against unjustified state interference.

Genomic information presents particularly serious privacy concerns because it can reveal information not only about the individual tested but also about biological relatives who have never consented to the examination.

Compulsory genomic testing may interfere with several interests:

• Bodily autonomy: Whether a person can be required to provide a biological sample.
• Informational privacy: Who may access and use the resulting genetic information.
• Genetic confidentiality: Whether results can be disclosed to employers, insurers, relatives, or government agencies.
• Familial privacy: Whether testing may reveal parentage, biological relationships, or inherited characteristics.
• Human dignity: Whether genetic information may be used to stigmatise, exclude, or classify individuals.

The constitutional question is not simply whether DNA testing is useful. It is whether the particular interference with individual rights is legally authorised, justified by a legitimate objective, and proportionate to that objective.

B. The proportionality test

A useful framework for reviewing compulsory genomic testing consists of four questions:

1. Legality: Is there a valid legal basis for requiring the test?
2. Legitimate purpose: Is the test directed towards a legally permissible objective, such as investigating a serious offence or resolving a material issue in judicial proceedings?
3. Suitability and necessity: Is the test capable of advancing that objective, and is there a less intrusive, reasonably effective alternative?
4. Proportionality: Do the public benefits justify the intrusion into privacy, bodily integrity, and the rights of other affected individuals?

This framework draws on Indian constitutional privacy jurisprudence. It does not mean that every compulsory DNA examination is unconstitutional. Rather, each exercise of power must satisfy the applicable legal requirements.

C. Article 20(3): Protection against compelled self-incrimination

Article 20(3) provides protection against an accused person being compelled to be a witness against themselves.

A crucial distinction must be maintained between compelling a person to provide physical evidence and compelling that person to communicate testimonial knowledge.

DNA profiling generally involves physical evidence, but the constitutional analysis can become more complex where a procedure involves compelled testimonial responses, involuntary interrogation, or other forms of compelled extraction of personal knowledge.

Consequently, Article 20(3) should not be interpreted as automatically prohibiting every compulsory DNA test. The nature of the procedure and the applicable judicial precedents must be examined.

D. Articles 14 and 19

Article 14 protects equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. It is relevant where genomic testing is imposed selectively, arbitrarily, or on discriminatory grounds.

For example, a government programme requiring genetic screening only of a particular social group without a defensible legal and scientific basis could raise serious equality concerns.

Article 19 may also be relevant when genomic classification affects protected activities, professional opportunities, expression, or association.

Constitutional principle: Genomic information must not become a mechanism through which public authorities exercise arbitrary power or impose unjustified genetic classifications.

4. Important Indian Case Laws

The following judgments provide the principal judicial foundations for compulsory genome accountability governance.

Case 1: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017)

Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India

Facts and legal issue

The case arose from constitutional challenges concerning the Aadhaar identification system and the collection and use of personal information. A nine-judge bench considered whether privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

Decision

The Supreme Court unanimously recognised privacy as a constitutionally protected fundamental right.

The judgment connected privacy with dignity, autonomy, personal liberty, and the ability of individuals to make important decisions concerning their lives.

It also recognised that privacy is not absolute. Restrictions must satisfy the applicable constitutional requirements.

Application to compulsory genomic testing

Although this was not a genome-testing case, its principles are directly relevant to genetic data collection.

Genomic information may reveal substantially more than ordinary identity information. Its collection may expose inherited medical risks, biological relationships, and other sensitive personal characteristics.

Under the constitutional framework established by Puttaswamy, a compulsory genomic programme must have a valid legal foundation and adequate safeguards appropriate to the interference involved.

A general administrative instruction, unsupported by sufficient legal authority, would not necessarily justify compulsory collection of genomic data.

Governance implications

1. Compulsory genomic collection must have an adequate legal basis.
2. The purpose of collection must be defined.
3. Collection and use must remain within legally justified limits.
4. Access and retention require appropriate safeguards.
5. Unjustified disclosure may engage constitutional privacy protections.

Significance: Puttaswamy supplies the central constitutional foundation for reviewing compulsory genomic surveillance and the processing of genetic information in India. Indian Kanoon

Case 2: Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)

Citation: (2010) 7 SCC 263
Court: Supreme Court of India

Legal issue

The case concerned the involuntary administration of investigative techniques including narcoanalysis, polygraph examinations, and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile test.

The Court considered the constitutional implications of compelling individuals to undergo such procedures.

Decision

The Supreme Court held that the involuntary administration of the techniques at issue violated constitutional protections, including Article 20(3) and Article 21.

The judgment addressed the distinction between physical evidence and the compelled extraction of personal knowledge. It also emphasised concerns relating to mental privacy, personal liberty, and the reliability and fairness of investigative procedures.

Application to genome accountability

Selvi does not establish a blanket prohibition on compulsory DNA testing. DNA sampling and the involuntary techniques considered in Selvi are legally and scientifically different.

Nevertheless, the judgment is important where genomic investigations are combined with compelled interrogation, cognitive testing, or attempts to extract information through procedures that implicate mental privacy or testimonial compulsion.

It also reinforces the broader principle that investigative usefulness does not automatically override constitutional rights.

Governance implications

An authority should distinguish between:

• Collecting a lawfully authorised biological sample.
• Analysing the sample for a specified evidentiary purpose.
• Sequencing a person's entire genome.
• Using genetic results to infer characteristics unrelated to the investigation.
• Combining genomic evidence with other coercive investigative techniques.

Each activity requires its own legal justification where it creates a distinct intrusion.

Significance: Selvi is an important constitutional authority for limiting coercive investigative methods, although its precise holdings must not be extended indiscriminately to all DNA examinations.

Case 3: Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993)

Citation: (1993) 3 SCC 418
Court: Supreme Court of India

Legal issue

The dispute concerned whether a court could require blood testing to determine paternity in circumstances involving the statutory presumption of legitimacy.

Decision

The Supreme Court held that blood tests should not be ordered routinely or merely to facilitate a speculative inquiry.

The Court emphasised the need for a sufficiently strong prima facie case and the potential consequences of testing for the child and family.

The judgment stated that a person could not simply be compelled to provide a blood sample without regard to the applicable legal principles.

Application to compulsory genome governance

The case illustrates why a court must consider the necessity and consequences of genetic examination before ordering it.

For example, a request for a DNA test should not automatically succeed merely because one party questions parentage. The court must assess the legal framework, supporting evidence, and competing interests.

The judgment is particularly relevant to:

• Parentage disputes.
• Inheritance litigation.
• Maintenance proceedings.
• Family-law disputes involving biological relationships.
• Requests for genetic evidence that may affect a child's legal status or privacy.

Important qualification: Goutam Kundu must be read alongside subsequent decisions, including Sharda v. Dharmpal and later Supreme Court judgments. It should not be treated as establishing that courts can never order an examination without consent.

Case 4: Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003)

Citation: (2003) 4 SCC 493
Court: Supreme Court of India

Legal issue

The case concerned whether a matrimonial court could direct a party to undergo a medical examination when the examination was relevant to the dispute.

Decision

The Supreme Court held that a matrimonial court has the power, in appropriate circumstances, to order a medical examination.

It rejected the proposition that every such direction necessarily violates personal liberty. At the same time, the Court recognised that the power must be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily.

The judgment also discussed the consequences of refusing a court-ordered medical examination.

Application to genome accountability

The decision is relevant to the question of whether courts can order medical or scientific examinations despite an individual's objection.

However, a medical examination ordered in matrimonial proceedings is not automatically equivalent to whole-genome sequencing or unrestricted genetic-data collection.

The particular test, its relevance, the legal authority for ordering it, and the extent of the intrusion remain important.

Governance implications

Courts should establish:

1. The legal relevance of the proposed examination.
2. The existence of a genuine issue requiring resolution.
3. The necessity of the procedure.
4. The likely impact on privacy and bodily autonomy.
5. The permissible consequences of non-compliance.

Significance: Sharda demonstrates that individual autonomy must be balanced against a court's lawful adjudicative responsibilities, rather than treated as an absolute bar to all compulsory examinations.

Case 5: Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women (2010)

Citation: (2010) 8 SCC 633
Court: Supreme Court of India

Legal issue

The case involved a request for DNA testing in a dispute concerning paternity and the exercise of judicial authority to order such testing.

Decision

The Supreme Court emphasised that DNA tests should not be ordered mechanically.

A court must consider whether there is an eminent need for the examination and carefully balance the interests of the parties.

The judgment also highlighted the importance of protecting privacy and avoiding unnecessary interference with family relationships.

Application to compulsory genomic testing

The eminent need approach is particularly useful when evaluating whether a genetic examination is genuinely necessary.

A court should not authorise testing merely because the technology is available or because the results might be interesting or potentially relevant.

For instance, if existing evidence is sufficient to determine a dispute, a far-reaching genetic examination may be unnecessary.

Conversely, where a properly established legal issue cannot fairly be resolved without reliable genetic evidence, the balance may favour testing, subject to applicable law and safeguards.

Significance: The decision supports a necessity-based approach to genetic testing and rejects routine or speculative use of DNA examinations.

Case 6: Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023)

Citation: (2023) 7 SCC 789
Court: Supreme Court of India

Legal issue

The dispute concerned whether a child could be subjected to DNA testing in matrimonial proceedings where one spouse sought to establish allegations of adultery.

Decision and legal principle

The Supreme Court emphasised that a child's DNA examination cannot be ordered routinely merely because one parent wishes to investigate allegations against the other.

Courts must consider the relevance of the proposed examination, the evidence already available, the child's interests, and the privacy implications.

The case illustrates the need to distinguish between evidence relevant to a matrimonial dispute and an intrusive examination that unnecessarily exposes a child's biological identity.

Application to genome accountability governance

This decision supports a child-sensitive approach to compulsory genetic testing.

A parent should not be able to use judicial proceedings as an unrestricted means of obtaining a child's genetic information. The court must independently assess whether the test is justified.

For genome governance, the decision is relevant to:

• Protection of children's genetic privacy.
• Prevention of unnecessary parentage testing.
• Restrictions on speculative genetic investigations.
• Consideration of the long-term consequences of genetic disclosure.
• Judicial accountability when authorising intrusive scientific procedures.

Key principle: The availability of a genetic test does not eliminate the court's responsibility to determine whether ordering it is legally justified.

Case 7: Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025)

Citation: 2025 INSC 115; Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2025
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decision date: 28 January 2025

Facts

The case concerned a claim of paternity and maintenance involving a child born while the child's mother was married to another man.

The litigation raised questions about the relationship between biological paternity and the legal presumption of legitimacy, and whether a DNA test should be ordered despite the privacy interests of those involved.

Decision

The Supreme Court examined the circumstances in which the presumption of legitimacy could be displaced and the conditions under which a court could order DNA testing.

The judgment stressed two critical requirements:

1. There must be a legally sufficient basis for questioning the existing presumption, supported by the relevant evidence.
2. The court must assess the necessity of the test and balance the interests of all affected parties.

The Court discussed the eminent need principle from Bhabani Prasad Jena and the risks of unjustified intrusion into privacy and dignity. API Sci

Application to compulsory genome accountability

This judgment is especially important because it makes the decision to order a DNA test itself a matter requiring justification.

A court should not treat a claimant's desire to discover biological parentage as automatically overriding the privacy and dignity of everyone involved.

The decision is relevant to genetic testing in family disputes, inheritance claims, maintenance proceedings, and other cases in which the result could substantially affect personal identity or family relationships.

Significance: Ivan Rathinam reinforces a necessity-based and rights-sensitive approach to judicially compelled genetic testing.

Case 8: R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha (2025)

Citation: 2025 INSC 1304; Criminal Appeal No. 1013 of 2021
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decision date: 10 November 2025

This is a particularly important recent judgment for compulsory genome accountability governance.

Facts

The dispute arose from criminal allegations involving a doctor and a woman with whom he allegedly had a relationship. The woman sought DNA testing to establish the biological paternity of her child.

The authorities had directed the doctor and the other relevant individuals to provide blood samples for DNA profiling. The doctor challenged the direction.

Legal issue

The central question was whether DNA testing could be compelled in a criminal investigation when the proposed examination was not sufficiently necessary to establish the alleged offences and would intrude upon privacy and dignity.

Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the direction requiring DNA profiling.

The Court concluded that the statutory presumption of legitimacy had not been displaced by sufficient evidence and that the proposed test was not justified by the circumstances of the criminal investigation.

It held that neither the eminent need requirement nor the necessary balancing of interests justified ordering the test in the case.

The Court also rejected the attempt to draw an adverse inference from the doctor's refusal to undergo a test when the legal basis for ordering the examination had not first been established. Supreme Court of India

Key legal principles

The judgment establishes several important safeguards:

1. DNA testing cannot be used merely to conduct a speculative or exploratory investigation.
2. There must be a demonstrable connection between the proposed examination and the alleged offence.
3. The court must consider whether other evidence can adequately resolve the matter.
4. The privacy and dignity of all affected individuals, including children, must be considered.
5. Refusal to undergo testing cannot automatically justify an adverse inference where the proposed direction itself lacks a sufficient legal foundation.

Application to genome accountability governance

This judgment directly supports the principle that the authority ordering a compulsory genetic examination must justify the decision before imposing the examination.

The obligation to explain the necessity of a test falls on the authority seeking to compel it; it cannot simply be assumed that an individual must submit because the investigation would benefit from the results.

The principle is particularly important when genomic testing could expose family relationships or information unrelated to the alleged offence.

Significance: R. Rajendran provides strong contemporary authority against unjustified compulsory DNA profiling in criminal investigations. Supreme Court of India

5. Additional Indian Judgments Relevant to Genome Accountability

These decisions must be read together rather than as isolated rules. The legality of a proposed test depends on its purpose, the applicable statutory framework, the evidence available, and the rights of the affected persons.

The Supreme Court's 2025 decision in R. Rajendran is particularly useful when considering whether a compulsory examination is genuinely connected to the legal issue being investigated.

6. Statutory Framework Governing Genomic Information in India

Compulsory genome accountability does not arise from one comprehensive Indian statute. It is shaped by several legal frameworks that govern different aspects of genetic testing.

A. The Constitution of India

The principal constitutional protections include:

• Article 14: Protection against arbitrary or discriminatory exercises of state power.
• Article 20(3): Protection against compelled self-incrimination.
• Article 21: Protection of life, personal liberty, dignity, and privacy.
• Articles 32 and 226: Constitutional remedies through the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, where their jurisdictional requirements are satisfied.

The precise remedy depends on the nature of the violation and the institution responsible.

B. DNA evidence and criminal procedure

DNA profiling may be relevant in criminal investigations, identification of biological material, and the resolution of disputed facts.

The legal framework must be examined with reference to the applicable criminal-procedure legislation and evidentiary rules.

For proceedings governed by the current criminal-law framework, relevant enactments include:

• The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
• The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

The applicable provisions must be identified according to the nature of the investigation or proceeding and any relevant transitional rules.

A power to obtain a biological sample for a legally specified purpose should not automatically be treated as authority to conduct unlimited genetic analysis.

The distinction between obtaining a sample, generating a DNA profile, sequencing a genome, and retaining the resulting data is fundamental to sound genomic governance.

C. DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation framework

India has considered specific legislation concerning the use and application of DNA technology for identification and related legal purposes.

However, proposed legislation must not be confused with an operative statute. The legal status and applicable commencement provisions of any specific DNA legislation must be verified before relying on it as an independent source of compulsory testing powers.

Accordingly, the existence of a proposed DNA database or regulatory framework does not, by itself, establish that every contemplated power is legally available.

D. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 establishes a framework for processing digital personal data, subject to its scope, exemptions, and commencement provisions.

The Act received presidential assent on 11 August 2023. The Central Government subsequently notified a phased commencement schedule in November 2025. As of 2 November 2026, the provisions do not all operate simultaneously; the substantive data-processing provisions are scheduled to commence 18 months after the November 2025 notification. E-Gazette

This phased commencement matters when assessing the legal position at a particular date.

Genomic information held in digital form may fall within the Act's framework when the relevant provisions apply. However, the Act should not be described as establishing a complete, genome-specific regime or as automatically prohibiting every form of compulsory genomic processing.

For a genomic-data project, legal analysis should address:

1. Whether the relevant processing falls within the Act's scope.
2. Whether the applicable provisions have commenced.
3. Whether an applicable legal basis or exemption exists.
4. What obligations apply to the organisation processing the information.
5. Whether additional constitutional, medical, research, or sector-specific requirements apply.

Important distinction: The Digital Personal Data Protection Act is a general personal-data framework, not a substitute for a specific legal authorisation to compel an individual to undergo genetic testing.

E. Medical research and institutional ethics

Genomic research involving human participants may also engage medical-research ethics, institutional review requirements, informed-consent standards, and rules governing the handling of biological material.

A research institution's approval to conduct a study does not necessarily authorise it to compel an individual to participate.

Similarly, a participant's consent to one research project does not automatically authorise every future use of their genetic information.

The scope of consent, the approved research purpose, and the applicable law must be examined separately.

7. International Case Laws on Genome Accountability

Indian constitutional law provides the principal framework for assessing compulsory genetic testing in India. International judgments, meanwhile, illustrate additional questions concerning genetic ownership, scientific freedom, commercial exploitation, and the rights of individuals whose biological materials are used for research.

Case 1: Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (2013)

Citation: 569 U.S. 576 (2013)
Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Facts

Myriad Genetics identified the locations and sequences of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are associated with increased risks of breast and ovarian cancer.

The company obtained patents relating to these genes. The litigation challenged whether naturally occurring human DNA could be patented merely because it had been isolated from the surrounding genetic material.

Decision

The Supreme Court held that naturally occurring DNA segments are not patent-eligible merely because they have been isolated. It distinguished such DNA from complementary DNA (cDNA), which may be patent-eligible because its creation produces a molecule that does not occur naturally in the same form.

The decision concerned patent eligibility under US law, not a general right to control or own a person's genome. Legal Information Institute

Relevance to genome accountability

The case illustrates an important distinction between discovering genetic information and creating a genuinely new, patent-eligible invention.

For genome governance, it raises questions about whether organisations can exercise excessive control over genetic testing, scientific information, or diagnostic technologies.

It supports the broader policy argument that genetic knowledge should not be monopolised without regard to scientific innovation, public access, and the interests of patients.

Limitation: Myriad Genetics is not a decision about compulsory DNA testing, informed consent to genomic sequencing, or the constitutional privacy rights of individuals.

Case 2: Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1990)

Citation: 51 Cal. 3d 120, 793 P.2d 479
Court: Supreme Court of California

Facts

John Moore received medical treatment for hairy-cell leukaemia. His physicians obtained and used his biological materials in research that resulted in a commercially valuable cell line.

Moore alleged, among other things, that the research and commercial use of his cells had occurred without appropriate disclosure and consent.

Decision

The Supreme Court of California rejected Moore's claim that he retained a continuing property interest in the excised cells sufficient to support his conversion claim under the circumstances.

However, the Court allowed other claims, including claims based on the physicians' alleged failure to disclose relevant research and financial interests, to proceed.

Relevance to genome accountability

The case highlights the distinction between ownership of biological materials and a patient's right to receive adequate information about how those materials will be used.

Applied to genomic research, it raises important questions about:

• Disclosure of commercial interests.
• Consent to research involving human biological materials.
• Transparency about future uses of samples.
• Conflicts of interest involving researchers and healthcare providers.
• The distribution of benefits derived from biological materials.

Key principle: A dispute about ownership of biological material is not identical to a dispute about informed consent, professional disclosure, or accountability for research practices. Justia Law

Case 3: R. v. S. and Marper v. United Kingdom (2008)

Citation: Applications Nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04
Court: European Court of Human Rights

Facts

The applicants challenged the retention of their fingerprints, cellular samples, and DNA profiles after criminal proceedings had ended without a conviction against them.

The case concerned the state's continued retention of sensitive personal information obtained through criminal investigations.

Decision

The Grand Chamber held that the blanket and indiscriminate retention of the applicants' fingerprints, cellular samples, and DNA profiles violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects private and family life.

Relevance to genome accountability

The decision is particularly important because it demonstrates that the lawfulness of collecting DNA and the lawfulness of retaining it are separate questions.

Even where an initial collection is justified, continued retention may become disproportionate if the original purpose no longer exists or the safeguards are inadequate.

For genomic governance, the case supports several principles:

1. Biological samples and DNA profiles should not automatically be retained indefinitely.
2. Retention rules should account for the purpose of collection and the person's legal status.
3. Authorities should establish clear rules for deletion and access.
4. The interests of individuals who have not been convicted of an offence deserve particular consideration.

Significance: S. and Marper is a leading comparative authority on DNA databases, privacy, and the limits of state retention powers.

It does not directly govern Indian courts, but it offers a useful framework for analysing the proportionality of genomic databases.

8. Accountability Obligations of Government Agencies and Laboratories

Compulsory genome accountability requires more than constitutional permission to obtain a sample. It also requires a system that makes the entire process traceable and reviewable.

A. Accountability of government agencies

A government agency seeking compulsory genomic testing should be able to establish:

• Its statutory authority.
• The specific purpose of the test.
• The factual grounds justifying the request.
• The relevance of the proposed analysis.
• The scope of the information sought.
• The rules governing access, retention, and disclosure.
• The availability of review and remedies.

Where required by law, the agency should obtain a judicial order or another legally prescribed authorisation.

An agency should not assume that its general responsibility for public safety gives it unlimited power to collect and analyse genetic information.

B. Accountability of forensic laboratories

A laboratory producing genetic evidence should maintain appropriate scientific and procedural safeguards.

These include:

Sample integrity: The laboratory must establish that the sample received is the sample lawfully collected and submitted for analysis.

Chain of custody: Records should identify who collected, transferred, received, stored, and analysed the sample.

Scientific reliability: Testing methods should be appropriately validated, and their limitations should be disclosed.

Quality assurance: Relevant accreditation, proficiency testing, equipment maintenance, and internal controls should be maintained as required by the applicable standards.

Interpretation: Reports should distinguish scientific findings from conclusions that cannot reliably be drawn from the available evidence.

Confidentiality: Genetic information should be protected against unauthorised access and disclosure.

Independent scrutiny: Where appropriate, the defence or another affected party should have a fair opportunity to challenge the evidence or obtain independent analysis under the applicable procedural rules.

A laboratory should not present a statistical match as proof of guilt. A DNA match may be highly probative of a particular biological relationship, but the overall significance depends on the circumstances, the quality of the evidence, and alternative explanations.

C. Accountability of courts

Courts play an important role in ensuring that compulsory testing is justified before it is ordered.

A reasoned judicial order should ordinarily address the following issues where they are material:

1. What fact is the proposed examination intended to establish?
2. Is that fact legally relevant?
3. Is the evidence already available sufficient?
4. Is the proposed test necessary?
5. Whose privacy and bodily autonomy will be affected?
6. What safeguards are required?
7. What should happen to the sample and results after the proceeding?

The principles in Bhabani Prasad Jena, Ivan Rathinam, and R. Rajendran demonstrate the importance of necessity, balancing interests, and a demonstrable connection between the test and the issue to be resolved.

9. Genetic Privacy, Discrimination, and Secondary Use

One of the most significant governance risks arises when genetic information is used for purposes beyond those that originally justified its collection.

For example, a DNA sample may initially be collected for criminal identification. If the resulting data are subsequently used to investigate unrelated inherited characteristics, the secondary use may raise distinct legal and ethical questions.

The original authorisation should not automatically be treated as permission for every subsequent use.

A. Employment discrimination

Genetic information could potentially reveal a person's predisposition to certain medical conditions.

An employer might attempt to use such information when deciding whether to hire, promote, or retain a worker.

This creates a risk that individuals could be disadvantaged based on predicted future health rather than their present qualifications or performance.

In India, such conduct would need to be assessed under the applicable employment, equality, privacy, disability, and data-protection frameworks. The precise legal consequences depend on the circumstances and applicable law.

B. Insurance discrimination

Genetic testing may reveal information relevant to certain future health risks.

Using such information in insurance decisions raises questions about privacy, fairness, actuarial justification, and the applicable insurance regulations.

A general constitutional privacy judgment should not be interpreted as establishing a universal prohibition on every form of genetic information use by insurers. The legal position depends on the particular insurance product and the governing legislation.

C. Family and reproductive privacy

Genetic results may reveal unexpected parentage, previously unknown relatives, or inherited conditions.

These findings can affect individuals who did not undergo the test and may never have agreed to participate.

Genome accountability should therefore recognise that genetic information has both an individual and a familial dimension.

D. Research and commercial exploitation

Research organisations may wish to reuse genomic datasets to develop diagnostic tools, medicines, or commercial technologies.

Such activity can provide substantial public benefits, but it also creates risks involving consent, confidentiality, secondary use, and the distribution of benefits.

Institutions should document the legal basis for processing, explain relevant research uses, implement appropriate access controls, and comply with applicable research and data-protection requirements.

10. A Proposed Genome Accountability Governance Model

The following is a normative framework for improving legal and institutional oversight. It is not a claim that India has enacted a single statute containing all these requirements.

A. Mandatory justification before testing

A proposed compulsory examination should identify its purpose, legal basis, scope, and expected evidentiary value.

The greater the intrusion, the more carefully its necessity should be examined.

For example, a limited DNA profile intended to identify biological material may be more proportionate than whole-genome sequencing when both could adequately serve the authorised purpose.

B. Purpose limitation

The information collected should not automatically be available for unrelated investigations, research, commercial activity, or administrative classification.

Any secondary use must have an appropriate legal basis and satisfy the applicable restrictions.

C. Sample and data lifecycle management

Accountability should extend across the entire lifecycle:

Collection → laboratory analysis → interpretation → access → disclosure → retention → deletion.

Each stage creates different risks and may require different safeguards.

D. Review and redress

An affected person should be able to challenge unlawful collection, inappropriate retention, misuse of results, or a decision that lacks adequate legal justification.

The appropriate remedy will depend on the applicable law. It may involve judicial review, exclusion of improperly obtained evidence where legally warranted, correction of records, compensation where available, or action by a competent regulatory authority.

11. Illustrative Legal Problems

Example 1: Compulsory whole-genome sequencing of a criminal suspect

Suppose the police obtain lawful authority to collect a suspect's DNA for comparison with biological material recovered from a crime scene.

The police then decide to sequence the suspect's entire genome to identify possible inherited medical conditions.

The legality of the initial collection does not automatically settle the legality of the additional sequencing.

The additional analysis would require a separate examination of its legal authority, relevance, necessity, and proportionality.

Under the principles of Puttaswamy and R. Rajendran, the police cannot justify an intrusive procedure merely by asserting that the information might be useful.

Example 2: DNA testing to establish parentage

Suppose a party to a family dispute seeks a court order requiring a child to undergo DNA testing.

The court should consider the existing evidence, the applicable statutory presumptions, the legal purpose of the request, and the interests of the child and other affected persons.

Under Bhabani Prasad Jena, Aparna Ajinkya Firodia, and Ivan Rathinam, testing should not be ordered mechanically.

The court must determine whether the examination is genuinely necessary and whether the benefits justify the intrusion.

Example 3: Indefinite retention of DNA after a criminal case ends

Suppose an individual's DNA is collected during an investigation, but the proceedings end without a conviction.

The authority proposes to retain the person's biological sample and genetic profile indefinitely.

A genome accountability analysis would examine the legal basis for retention, the person's legal status, the original purpose, applicable deletion rules, and the safeguards against unrelated use.

The comparative reasoning in S. and Marper v. United Kingdom demonstrates why retention must be assessed separately from initial collection.

Example 4: Mandatory genetic screening for employment

Suppose a public employer requires applicants to disclose inherited disease risks, even though those risks have no demonstrated relevance to the essential duties of the job.

Such a requirement could raise serious questions concerning privacy, equality, proportionality, and unlawful discrimination.

The employer would need to establish an adequate legal basis and a defensible connection between the screening requirement and a legitimate employment objective.

A broad claim that genetic screening improves workforce management would not, by itself, resolve these concerns.

12. Critical Analysis: The Limits of Compulsory Genome Governance

Compulsory genomic testing can serve legitimate public purposes, including criminal identification, resolution of certain family disputes, and identification of disaster victims.

However, it also creates risks that ordinary identity systems may not present to the same extent.

First, genetic information can reveal enduring characteristics that cannot easily be changed. Second, information about one individual may expose information about relatives. Third, genomic analysis can produce findings that were not anticipated when the sample was collected. Fourth, genetic databases can become powerful tools for surveillance if their permitted uses are not carefully restricted.

These concerns demonstrate why accountability must extend beyond the initial decision to obtain a sample.

A legal system that permits compulsory testing without meaningful safeguards governing interpretation, disclosure, retention, and deletion may protect investigative efficiency while failing to protect the individuals whose biological information is being used.

Conversely, a system that prohibits every form of compulsory genetic testing could prevent legitimate investigations and undermine the administration of justice.

The appropriate approach is therefore neither unrestricted compulsory testing nor an absolute prohibition. It is a framework in which compulsory testing is permitted only when legally justified and accompanied by safeguards proportionate to the intrusion.

13. Conclusion

Compulsory Genome Accountability Governance is best understood as a framework for ensuring that the power to compel genetic testing is lawful, necessary, proportionate, scientifically reliable, and subject to meaningful oversight.

In India, its principal judicial foundations include:

• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India — constitutional privacy and personal autonomy.
• Selvi v. State of Karnataka — constitutional limits on coercive investigative techniques.
• Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal — caution against routine or speculative parentage testing.
• Sharda v. Dharmpal — judicial power to order medical examinations in appropriate circumstances.
• Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary — the requirement of eminent need and balancing of interests.
• Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia — protection of children's interests and genetic privacy.
• Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph — necessity and balancing of interests in parentage testing.
• R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha — limits on unjustified compulsory DNA profiling in criminal investigations.

Internationally, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics illustrates the limits of patent claims over naturally occurring genetic information; Moore v. Regents highlights issues involving biological materials, consent, and commercial research; and S. and Marper v. United Kingdom demonstrates the importance of controlling the retention of DNA profiles and samples.

Taken together, these authorities support a governance model based on legal authority, necessity, proportionality, scientific integrity, confidentiality, limited retention, independent review, and effective remedies.

The ultimate principle is that scientific capability does not itself create legal authority. The ability to obtain, sequence, or analyse a person's genome does not automatically establish the right to compel the procedure or to use the resulting information for every conceivable purpose.

This is a general legal research overview, not advice on a specific dispute. The outcome of an actual case depends on the applicable legislation, the facts, the procedural posture, and the binding authorities governing that proceeding.