1. Introduction

Compulsory Genome Governance refers to the legal, constitutional, ethical, and administrative framework governing situations in which the state, courts, healthcare institutions, employers, or other authorized bodies seek to require individuals to provide genetic material, undergo genome sequencing, disclose genetic information, or participate in genetic testing without fully voluntary consent.

The concept raises fundamental questions:

• Can the government compel a person to provide a DNA sample?
• Can genetic testing be mandatory for criminal investigations or identification?
• Can a state require genetic screening for public-health purposes?
• Can employers or insurance companies demand access to genetic information?
• Can parents or guardians authorize genome testing for children?
• Who controls genetic data after it has been collected?
• What legal remedies are available when genetic information is unlawfully obtained, disclosed, or misused?

The central legal principle is that scientific capability does not automatically confer legal authority. Compulsory genome collection must have a lawful basis, pursue a legitimate objective, respect applicable constitutional protections, and incorporate safeguards against disproportionate intrusion and discrimination.

There is no single, universally applicable legal doctrine called the Compulsory Genome Governance Doctrine. Instead, the subject draws on constitutional law, privacy and data protection, criminal procedure, medical law, bioethics, human-rights law, and genetic-research regulation.

This explanation focuses primarily on Indian law, with relevant comparative authorities and international standards.

2. Meaning and Scope of Compulsory Genome Governance

Genome governance concerns the rules controlling the collection, analysis, storage, interpretation, sharing, and eventual destruction of genetic information.

Compulsion may arise in several different situations.

These situations must not be treated as legally interchangeable. A DNA sample collected under lawful criminal procedure, for example, raises different questions from a compulsory genetic test imposed on a healthy person for employment purposes.

Similarly, collecting a DNA sample, analysing a genetic characteristic, retaining a genetic profile, and disclosing the resulting information are separate legal acts. Each may require its own justification and safeguards.

3. Constitutional Framework in India

3.1 Article 21: Right to Life, Personal Liberty and Privacy

Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Its interpretation encompasses important protections for genome governance:

• Personal autonomy and bodily integrity.
• Privacy concerning intimate and familial information.
• Protection against arbitrary state intrusion.
• Dignity and control over important personal decisions.
• Fair and reasonable procedures where the state restricts liberty.

Genetic information is particularly sensitive because it may reveal inherited disease risks, biological relationships, ancestry, and information relevant to relatives who have never consented to testing.

A compulsory genetic test can therefore intrude into more than the physical body. It may reveal information about identity, parentage, reproductive history, and future health risks.

However, Article 21 does not establish an absolute prohibition on compulsory DNA testing. A properly authorized and proportionate test may be permissible in appropriate circumstances.

3.2 Article 20(3): Protection Against Self-Incrimination

Article 20(3) states:

No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

This protection becomes relevant when authorities seek biological samples or genetic evidence from an accused person.

The central distinction is between compelling a person to provide testimonial evidence and obtaining physical or scientific evidence from that person.

DNA evidence is generally treated differently from compelled testimonial statements. Nevertheless, this does not mean that every compulsory DNA test is automatically constitutional. The legality of the collection, the applicable statutory authority, the circumstances of the investigation, and the intrusion into privacy must still be considered.

3.3 Article 14: Equality and Non-Arbitrariness

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.

Compulsory genome programmes may raise Article 14 concerns if they:

• Target particular communities without a rational justification.
• Impose testing on certain social groups without applying comparable standards to others.
• Use genetic characteristics as an arbitrary basis for government benefits or restrictions.
• Subject people to differential treatment through scientifically unsupported genetic classifications.

A genome governance framework must distinguish between legitimate, evidence-based risk assessment and discriminatory genetic profiling.

3.4 Article 19: Freedom and Personal Choice

Depending on the circumstances, compulsory genetic disclosure may also affect freedoms protected under Article 19, including expression, association, and occupation.

For example, a genetic-data policy affecting access to particular professions may require examination of the relevant freedom, the statutory basis for the restriction, and the proportionality of the measure.

The application of Article 19 depends on the right involved, the nature of the restriction, and the constitutional requirements applicable to it.

3.5 The Proportionality Test

In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court recognized privacy as a fundamental right.

The judgment is a foundational authority for assessing compulsory genetic-data collection. A measure interfering with privacy must satisfy the constitutional requirements of legality, legitimate state purpose, and proportionality, alongside the applicable requirements of fair procedure.

In practical terms, a genome-testing requirement should be examined through the following questions:

1. Legality: Is there a valid legal basis for requiring the test?
2. Legitimate purpose: Is the test intended to achieve a constitutionally permissible objective?
3. Necessity: Is genetic testing genuinely needed, or can the objective be achieved through less intrusive evidence?
4. Proportionality: Are the benefits sufficient to justify the intrusion?
5. Safeguards: Are access, disclosure, retention, and misuse adequately controlled?

A government cannot justify an unlimited genetic-surveillance programme merely by invoking public safety or administrative convenience. The actual legal authority and design of the programme must be examined.

Case: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1. Indian Kanoon

4. Major Indian Case Laws on Compulsory Genome Governance

4.1 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017)

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

Facts and legal issue

A nine-judge Constitution Bench considered whether privacy was protected as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.

The case did not concern a compulsory genome database directly. Nevertheless, its constitutional reasoning is central to questions involving genetic privacy, medical information, DNA databases, and compulsory genetic testing.

Legal principles

The Court recognized privacy as intrinsic to personal liberty and dignity. Its reasoning protects important aspects of informational privacy and personal autonomy.

Applied to genome governance, this means that authorities cannot assume that genetic information is freely available for unrestricted collection or use merely because scientific techniques can reveal it.

Significance

The judgment supports challenges to genome-testing requirements that lack legal authority, pursue an illegitimate objective, or impose disproportionate restrictions on privacy.

It also provides a constitutional basis for scrutinizing the secondary use of genetic information collected for one purpose but subsequently used for another.

Governance lesson: Genetic information requires protection throughout its lifecycle, from collection and analysis to disclosure and deletion. Indian Kanoon

4.2 Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)

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

Facts

The case concerned the involuntary administration of investigative techniques, including narco-analysis, polygraph examinations, and Brain Electrical Activation Profile tests.

The central question was whether forcing individuals to undergo these techniques violated constitutional protections against self-incrimination and infringed personal liberty.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that involuntary administration of the impugned techniques violated constitutional protections under Articles 20(3) and 21.

The Court distinguished compelled testimonial responses from the collection of physical evidence used for identification or comparison.

Relevance to genome governance

DNA profiling is not identical to narco-analysis or a polygraph examination. Consequently, Selvi should not be interpreted as establishing a blanket prohibition on compulsory DNA collection.

Nevertheless, it establishes an important principle: the state cannot treat every scientifically useful investigative technique as constitutionally permissible simply because it may assist an investigation.

The legal character of the evidence, the degree of compulsion, and the applicable statutory safeguards all matter.

Governance lesson: Compulsory genetic procedures must be evaluated according to their actual nature and constitutional impact rather than grouped indiscriminately with other forensic techniques. Indian Kanoon

4.3 Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women (2010)

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

Facts

The dispute concerned whether DNA testing should be ordered to resolve a question of biological paternity.

The Court had to balance the evidentiary value of DNA testing against privacy, family relationships, and the possible consequences for the child.

Judgment

The Supreme Court emphasized that DNA testing in paternity disputes is an extremely sensitive matter. Courts should not order such tests routinely whenever a party requests them.

Instead, the court must determine whether the test is genuinely necessary after considering the evidence, the relevant legal presumptions, and the interests of everyone affected.

Legal significance

The case provides a foundation for judicial control over compulsory genetic testing in civil and family proceedings.

A party cannot automatically obtain a DNA-testing order merely by alleging that the existing account of biological parentage is incorrect.

Courts must assess whether ordinary evidence can resolve the dispute and whether the proposed test would cause unjustified harm to privacy or the interests of the child.

Governance lesson: Scientific accuracy is important, but it does not eliminate the need for judicial discretion, necessity, and proportionality. API Sci

4.4 Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023)

Citation: 2023 INSC 135
Court: Supreme Court of India

Legal issue

The case concerned a request for DNA testing in a matrimonial and paternity dispute.

Principle

The Supreme Court reinforced the need for caution when courts are asked to order genetic testing to resolve questions of parentage.

A DNA test should not become a means of conducting an unrestricted inquiry into intimate family relationships. Courts must consider the applicable legal presumption of legitimacy, the available evidence, the necessity of testing, and the possible impact on the child.

Significance

The case illustrates that genome governance includes not only state databases and criminal investigations but also judicial decisions that compel the disclosure of intimate biological information.

Governance lesson: A court order for genetic testing must be justified by the needs of the particular case; it should not be treated as an automatic entitlement of a litigant. API Sci

4.5 R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha (2025)

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1013 of 2021, Supreme Court of India, judgment dated 10 November 2025.

Legal issue

The Supreme Court considered whether DNA testing could be directed in a dispute involving allegations of cheating and harassment, where biological paternity was also raised.

Judgment and significance

The Court emphasized that a DNA test must have a direct and demonstrable connection to the matter being investigated. A test should not be ordered merely because it might reveal additional information about the parties.

The Court examined the intrusion into bodily autonomy, privacy, dignity, and the interests of the child, and concluded that the proposed testing was not justified in the circumstances before it.

The decision is particularly important because it distinguishes the general usefulness of DNA evidence from the specific necessity of compelling an individual to provide it.

Governance lesson: A compulsory genetic test should have a demonstrable evidentiary nexus to the legitimate purpose for which it is ordered. An intrusive test is not justified merely because it could satisfy curiosity or uncover unrelated private information. API Sci

4.6 Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993)

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

Legal issue

The case concerned the circumstances in which a blood test could be ordered in a dispute over paternity.

Principle

The Supreme Court established that courts should not order blood tests as a matter of course. The court must consider the strength of the evidence, the applicable presumption of legitimacy, and the potential consequences of testing.

The decision remains an important authority for understanding judicial restraint in paternity disputes, read alongside subsequent decisions that have refined the approach to DNA evidence.

Significance

It illustrates that an evidentiary procedure can be scientifically useful but legally inappropriate in a particular case.

Governance lesson: Genetic evidence should be obtained through a reasoned judicial process, not merely because a party requests it. API Sci

4.7 State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961)

Citation: AIR 1961 SC 1808
Court: Supreme Court of India

Principle

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional meaning of being compelled to be a witness against oneself under Article 20(3).

The decision distinguished testimonial compulsion from the provision of physical identifying characteristics, such as fingerprints and specimens used for comparison.

Relevance

The distinction helps explain why obtaining a physical DNA sample is not automatically equivalent to compelling an accused person to give a testimonial statement.

However, this distinction does not independently authorize every DNA collection. The applicable statutory powers, privacy requirements, and safeguards remain relevant.

Governance lesson: Genome governance must distinguish between the evidentiary character of a sample and the legality of obtaining, analysing, and retaining it.

4.8 Rohit Shekhar v. Narayan Dutt Tiwari (2012)

Citation: 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2542
Court: Delhi High Court

Facts and issue

The litigation concerned a claim of biological paternity and a judicial direction for DNA testing.

The case examined the relationship between the court's power to obtain relevant evidence and an individual's interest in bodily integrity and privacy.

Significance

The litigation illustrates the tension between determining biological truth and respecting personal autonomy. It also demonstrates that the legal analysis of an order for DNA testing must be distinguished from the question of how such an order may lawfully be implemented.

The decision should be read with the Supreme Court's subsequent constitutional privacy jurisprudence and its more recent judgments requiring careful scrutiny of compulsory DNA testing.

Governance lesson: Judicial power to obtain evidence is not a general licence for unrestricted genetic investigation.

5. Statutory Framework Governing Genetic Information in India

Genome governance is not governed by a single comprehensive statute covering every possible use of genetic information. Instead, different legal frameworks apply depending on the purpose and circumstances of the collection.

5.1 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) governs criminal procedure and includes provisions concerning the medical examination of accused persons and the collection of relevant forensic evidence.

Sections 51 and 52 address medical examination in specified criminal circumstances. Section 349 concerns the power of a magistrate to order specimen signatures, handwriting, and certain other specimens.

The precise authority for obtaining a DNA sample must be determined from the applicable provision and the circumstances of the case. These provisions should not be interpreted as conferring unlimited power to compel genome sequencing or to create unrestricted genetic databases.

A lawful criminal investigation should establish:

1. The statutory basis for collecting the sample.
2. The connection between the sample and the alleged offence.
3. Compliance with the applicable procedural safeguards.
4. The permissible scope of forensic analysis.
5. Appropriate handling and retention of the resulting material.

5.2 Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

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

Genetic information held digitally and linked to an identifiable person may fall within its scope.

Relevant governance concerns include lawful processing, notice where required, security safeguards, accountability for data handling, and compliance with applicable rights and obligations.

However, it is important not to assume that every genetic sample or every piece of biological information is covered in the same way. The application of the Act depends on whether the material constitutes digital personal data within the statutory framework and on the applicable provisions in force.

Practical implication: Organizations managing genomic databases should assess their obligations under the data-protection framework rather than assume that scientific research or medical use automatically exempts them.

5.3 Information Technology Act, 2000

The Information Technology Act, 2000, and the rules made under it may be relevant to certain electronic records, unauthorized disclosures, and data-security failures, depending on the applicable provisions and circumstances.

It should not be treated as a comprehensive genome-governance statute.

5.4 Biomedical Research and Clinical Regulation

Genetic research and clinical testing may also engage medical regulation, research-ethics requirements, institutional review procedures, and applicable clinical standards.

A genome study may raise several distinct questions:

• Was the participant properly informed?
• Was valid consent obtained or was there a lawful exception?
• Was the research protocol appropriately reviewed?
• Were samples and genetic data used only for permitted purposes?
• Were incidental findings handled appropriately?
• Were confidentiality and data security maintained?
• Could the participant withdraw from the study, and what would withdrawal mean for already collected data?

The answers depend on the nature of the research, the applicable legislation, ethical guidelines, and the terms of participation.

5.5 DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill

India has considered dedicated legislation for regulating DNA technology and forensic databases.

The proposed DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2019, is relevant to the history of Indian genome-governance debates. It should not, however, be confused with an enacted statute presently authorizing every form of compulsory genetic testing or database creation.

The legal position must be assessed under the legislation actually in force, rather than under a proposed bill.

5.6 Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022

The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 is particularly relevant to the collection of identifying measurements from persons covered by the Act.

It authorizes the taking of specified measurements, including certain biological samples, subject to its provisions. Its scope and operation must be distinguished from a general power to conduct whole-genome sequencing.

The Act is relevant to genome governance because it raises questions about the lawful collection, preservation, use, and retention of identifying information.

The distinction is important: authority to collect a specified biological sample does not automatically authorize every possible genetic analysis of that sample.

6. International Legal Standards

6.1 UNESCO Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, 1997

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization adopted the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights on 11 November 1997. The United Nations General Assembly subsequently endorsed it.

The Declaration establishes important principles for the ethical governance of genetic science. UNESCO

Its key provisions include:

• Article 2: Respect for human dignity regardless of genetic characteristics.
• Article 5: Prior, free, and informed consent for research, treatment, or diagnosis affecting an individual's genome, subject to the Declaration's provisions.
• Article 6: Protection against discrimination based on genetic characteristics.
• Article 7: Confidentiality of genetic data associated with an identifiable person.
• Article 8: A right to just reparation for qualifying damage caused by an intervention affecting the genome.
• Article 9: Restrictions on consent and confidentiality must be prescribed by law for compelling reasons consistent with international human-rights law.

These principles provide a valuable international framework for evaluating compulsory genetic testing.

However, the Declaration is not itself a comprehensive, directly enforceable domestic statute in India. Its legal effect must be distinguished from that of the Indian Constitution and enacted legislation.

Official text: UNESCO Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights

6.2 International Declaration on Human Genetic Data, 2003

The UNESCO International Declaration on Human Genetic Data provides further guidance on the collection, processing, storage, and use of genetic information. UNESCO

Its principal governance concerns include:

1. Informed consent and its lawful limitations.
2. Privacy and confidentiality.
3. Protection against discrimination and stigmatization.
4. Access to personal genetic information.
5. Appropriate use and storage of genetic samples.
6. Destruction of data and samples when retention is no longer justified, subject to applicable law.

The Declaration recognizes that genetic information may reveal facts relevant to relatives and future generations, making its misuse potentially more extensive than the misuse of ordinary personal information.

Official text: UNESCO International Declaration on Human Genetic Data

6.3 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, DNA profiles, and cellular samples after criminal proceedings against them had ended without conviction.

Judgment

The Grand Chamber found a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court considered the sensitivity of genetic material and the disproportionate nature of the blanket retention arrangements at issue.

Significance

This judgment is an important comparative authority on genetic database governance.

It demonstrates that even where collecting biological material may initially serve a legitimate investigative purpose, indefinite or indiscriminate retention may raise a separate privacy violation.

The judgment does not establish the governing law in India, but its reasoning is relevant when evaluating database design, retention periods, and the treatment of persons who have not been convicted.

7. Core Principles of Compulsory Genome Governance

A sound genome-governance framework should incorporate the following principles.

7.1 Legality and Clear Authorization

Authorities should identify the precise legal provision permitting compulsory collection.

General claims of public interest, scientific usefulness, or administrative convenience are insufficient substitutes for lawful authority.

The law should specify who may order testing, for what purposes, under which conditions, and subject to which review mechanisms.

7.2 Necessity and Proportionality

Genome testing should not be imposed when less intrusive methods can adequately achieve the legitimate objective.

For example, if ordinary documentary evidence can resolve a dispute, whole-genome sequencing would ordinarily be unnecessary.

The extent of testing should also be proportionate to the purpose. A limited forensic DNA profile may be sufficient for identification, whereas sequencing an individual's entire genome could reveal substantially more sensitive information.

7.3 Bodily Autonomy and Informed Consent

Voluntary genetic testing should ordinarily be based on informed consent.

Where testing is legally compulsory, authorities should explain the applicable legal basis, the scope of collection, the purpose of analysis, and the available remedies.

Consent should not be treated as freely given where it is obtained through unlawful coercion or where the person has no meaningful choice in circumstances requiring voluntary participation.

Conversely, refusal to consent does not automatically invalidate a test that is independently authorized by law.

7.4 Purpose Limitation

Genetic material collected for one purpose should not automatically become available for unrelated uses.

For example, a DNA sample collected to identify a person in a criminal investigation should not automatically be used for unrelated research, commercial profiling, or predictive health assessments.

Any secondary use must have an appropriate legal basis and comply with applicable privacy and research requirements.

7.5 Data Minimization and Retention

Governance rules should distinguish between:

• The original biological sample.
• The forensic DNA profile.
• A whole-genome sequence.
• Clinical interpretations of genetic variants.
• Identifying information linking the data to a person.
• Records of access and disclosure.

These materials have different privacy implications and may require different retention periods.

A proportionate framework should specify when samples and profiles must be deleted, destroyed, or retained under a lawful exception.

7.6 Equality and Non-Discrimination

Genetic characteristics should not become a general basis for excluding individuals from employment, education, healthcare, insurance, or public services.

A scientifically identified genetic predisposition is not necessarily a diagnosis, proof of future illness, or evidence of an individual's abilities and behaviour.

Governance must therefore guard against unjustified genetic classification and discrimination.

7.7 Independent Oversight and Accountability

Genome-governance systems should include:

• Independent supervision of genetic databases.
• Laboratory accreditation and quality assurance.
• Documented access controls.
• Audits of collection, analysis, and disclosure.
• Procedures for correcting inaccurate information.
• Investigation of unauthorized access or use.
• Effective complaint and judicial-review mechanisms.
• Remedies for unlawful collection or disclosure.

The precise legal duties depend on the applicable statutory framework.

8. Special Problems in Compulsory Genome Governance

8.1 Compulsory Whole-Genome Sequencing

Whole-genome sequencing can reveal considerably more than a targeted DNA test.

It may disclose information about disease susceptibility, inherited conditions, biological relationships, and genetic variants whose significance is not yet known.

Consequently, a legal authorization to obtain a DNA sample should not automatically be interpreted as authorization to conduct unrestricted whole-genome sequencing.

The appropriate legal assessment should examine the purpose of testing, the amount of information generated, the availability of less intrusive alternatives, and the safeguards governing the resulting data.

8.2 Compulsory Genetic Screening of Children

Children require particular protection because they may not be able to provide fully informed consent and may be unable to understand the long-term implications of genetic disclosure.

Decisions should take account of the child's best interests, the clinical relevance of testing, the possibility of future autonomy, and the risks of stigma or discrimination.

Testing intended to diagnose a serious childhood condition may be justified in circumstances where broad predictive testing for unrelated adult-onset conditions would be difficult to justify.

The child's welfare must remain central to the decision.

8.3 Compulsory Genetic Testing of Employees

An employer's desire to reduce workplace risk does not automatically justify requiring genetic testing.

Testing that reveals predispositions unrelated to the actual requirements of a job may be disproportionate and discriminatory.

Any proposed requirement must be evaluated under the applicable employment, equality, privacy, and data-protection laws.

8.4 Genetic Testing in Public Health Emergencies

A genuine public-health emergency may justify certain compulsory medical measures where authorized by law.

Nevertheless, the existence of a public-health objective does not establish that genetic testing is necessary.

Authorities should demonstrate why the test is relevant, why less intrusive alternatives are inadequate, and how the resulting information will be protected.

8.5 Compulsory Genetic Screening for Reproductive Purposes

A government programme that requires genetic screening before marriage, conception, or reproduction raises especially serious questions about equality, privacy, reproductive autonomy, and disability discrimination.

A state cannot assume that the existence of a genetic risk automatically justifies restricting an individual's reproductive choices.

Any compulsory measure would require particularly careful examination of its legal basis, necessity, proportionality, and impact on fundamental rights.

9. Remedies for Unlawful Compulsory Genome Collection

Where genetic material or information has been collected or used unlawfully, possible remedies depend on the circumstances and the applicable law.

Constitutional remedies

A person may seek appropriate relief under Article 32 before the Supreme Court or Article 226 before a High Court where the relevant constitutional requirements are met.

Possible relief may include a challenge to an unlawful government direction, protection against continuing misuse, or other appropriate judicial orders.

Criminal-procedure remedies

A person may challenge a DNA-testing direction or the manner in which a sample was obtained through the procedures available in the relevant criminal or civil proceeding.

The availability of a remedy depends on the statutory power exercised and the procedural context.

Data-protection remedies

Where the applicable data-protection legislation is in force and applies to the processing, the person may pursue the rights and remedies available under that framework.

Civil remedies

Depending on the facts and applicable law, unauthorized disclosure, unlawful conduct, or resulting harm may support civil proceedings or other forms of legal redress.

Evidentiary objections

A party may challenge the relevance, reliability, authenticity, or lawful acquisition of genetic evidence.

However, unlawful collection does not necessarily result in automatic exclusion of the evidence in every Indian proceeding. Admissibility must be assessed under the applicable evidentiary rules and judicial precedents.

10. Proposed Governance Model for India

An effective framework for compulsory genome governance should contain the following elements.

The central objective should be to make genetic evidence available for legitimate purposes without creating an unrestricted system of genetic surveillance.

11. Critical Legal Analysis

Compulsory genome governance involves three competing interests.

First, the public interest. DNA evidence can help identify offenders, establish biological relationships, identify missing persons, and investigate certain crimes.

Second, individual autonomy. Genetic information concerns deeply personal aspects of identity, health, family relationships, and biological inheritance.

Third, institutional accountability. Even a justified collection can become unlawful or harmful if the information is retained indefinitely, disclosed improperly, or used for a different purpose.

The most important distinction is between the legality of collecting a sample and the legality of everything subsequently done with it.

A legally justified collection does not automatically justify unrestricted sequencing, indefinite retention, disclosure to third parties, or use in unrelated proceedings.

Similarly, a finding that DNA evidence is relevant does not eliminate the need to consider privacy, procedural fairness, and the interests of other people whose genetic information may be revealed.

The strongest governance model therefore combines limited statutory authority, necessity, proportionality, scientific reliability, privacy safeguards, independent oversight, and effective remedies.

12. Conclusion

Compulsory Genome Governance is the legal discipline concerned with controlling the circumstances in which genetic information may be obtained, analysed, retained, disclosed, and used without fully voluntary consent.

In India, its constitutional foundation is principally connected to Articles 14, 20(3), and 21, together with applicable statutory frameworks and judicial decisions.

The most significant cases include:

1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) — privacy as a fundamental right.
2. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) — constitutional limits on involuntary investigative techniques.
3. Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women (2010) — necessity and judicial restraint in paternity testing.
4. Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023) — safeguards in court-ordered DNA testing.
5. Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993) — limits on routine blood testing in paternity disputes.
6. R. Rajendran v. Kamar Nisha (2025) — the need for a demonstrable connection between proposed DNA testing and the matter under investigation.
7. S. and Marper v. United Kingdom (2008) — proportionality and the retention of genetic information.

Internationally, the UNESCO declarations on the human genome and human genetic data provide important standards for dignity, consent, confidentiality, equality, and responsible scientific governance.

The ultimate legal principle is that compulsory genome testing must be justified by law, not merely by scientific possibility. Its scope must be necessary and proportionate to a legitimate purpose, and the resulting genetic information must remain subject to appropriate legal and institutional safeguards.

Academic note: This is a general legal analysis, not advice on a specific case. The precise outcome will depend on the relevant statute, facts, procedural posture, and current binding precedent.