1. Meaning 

False Genetic Profiling refers to the wrongful, inaccurate, misleading, fabricated, or scientifically unsupported identification or classification of an individual through genetic information (DNA), genetic testing, genomic analysis, or genetic prediction.

It occurs when an individual, laboratory, hospital, biotechnology company, government agency, researcher, or other responsible entity produces or uses an incorrect genetic profile and thereby causes harm to an individual or a third party.

Genetic profiling may involve:

DNA identification and genetic fingerprinting.

Identification of hereditary diseases.

Prediction of genetic susceptibility to particular illnesses.

Identification of biological parentage and familial relationships.

Genetic ancestry and population classification.

Assessment of inherited characteristics.

Genetic information used in employment, insurance, criminal investigations, or medical decisions.

False genetic profiling becomes a legal liability issue when inaccurate genetic information is generated, negligently interpreted, improperly disclosed, or knowingly used to make decisions affecting a person's rights, reputation, liberty, employment, insurance, family relationships, or dignity.

Important distinction: A false genetic profile is not necessarily the same as a false DNA laboratory result. Liability may also arise from incorrect interpretation, misattribution of a DNA sample, faulty statistical conclusions, or misuse of an otherwise accurate genetic result.

2. Essential elements of liability

A claim arising from false genetic profiling generally requires consideration of the following elements.

A. Duty of care

A laboratory, genetic testing company, medical practitioner, researcher, or other professional handling genetic information may owe a duty to:

Use scientifically validated testing procedures.

Maintain proper laboratory standards.

Verify the identity of the person whose DNA is examined.

Prevent sample contamination and substitution.

Interpret results accurately.

Communicate scientific limitations.

Maintain confidentiality.

Avoid unsupported conclusions.

B. Breach of duty

A breach may occur where the responsible person or institution:

Uses defective genetic testing equipment.

Fails to calibrate laboratory instruments.

Mislabels DNA samples.

Uses contaminated biological material.

Misinterprets genetic markers.

Reports uncertain results as conclusive.

Uses an unvalidated genetic algorithm.

Falsifies genetic information.

Ignores contradictory scientific evidence.

C. Causation

The claimant must establish an appropriate connection between the inaccurate genetic profile and the resulting injury.

For example, an incorrect genetic report might lead to:

Wrongful criminal suspicion or prosecution.

Unnecessary medical treatment.

Denial of employment.

Insurance discrimination.

Incorrect determination of biological parentage.

Family separation or reputational injury.

Psychological and emotional suffering.

D. Legally recognizable damage

Depending on the jurisdiction and cause of action, recoverable harm may include:

Physical injury.

Financial loss.

Psychiatric injury.

Reputational damage.

Violation of privacy.

Loss of liberty.

Discrimination.

Dignitary injury and constitutional harm.

A scientifically incorrect result does not automatically establish a successful damages claim. The claimant must establish the relevant legal wrong, applicable duty, causation, and remedy.

3. Different forms of false genetic profiling

3.1 False identification through DNA profiling

This occurs when an individual is wrongly identified as the source of biological material because of:

Sample contamination.

DNA transfer.

Laboratory error.

Incorrect chain of custody.

Misinterpretation of mixed DNA samples.

Inadequate statistical analysis.

Legal consequences: Criminal liability may arise where evidence is deliberately fabricated or manipulated. Civil liability may arise from negligent laboratory practices or wrongful disclosure. Constitutional remedies may also be available where state action violates fundamental rights.

3.2 False hereditary disease profiling

A genetic testing institution may incorrectly classify an individual as having a hereditary disease or a genetic predisposition to a particular condition.

For example, a laboratory may report that an individual carries a disease-associated genetic variant when the result is actually negative or uncertain.

Potential consequences include:

Unnecessary surgery or medication.

Psychological trauma.

Unnecessary reproductive decisions.

Financial loss.

Insurance difficulties.

Family disputes.

Liability may arise through medical negligence, deficiency in service, consumer protection law, or breach of confidentiality.

3.3 False parentage and familial profiling

False genetic profiling may incorrectly establish or deny biological parentage.

For example, a defective DNA test may identify an unrelated individual as the biological father of a child.

This can affect:

Maintenance and inheritance disputes.

Custody proceedings.

Marital relationships.

Family reputation.

Personal identity and dignity.

Courts must carefully balance the evidentiary value of DNA testing against privacy, dignity, and the interests of children.

3.4 False genetic risk classification

A company may incorrectly classify a person as genetically predisposed to a particular illness or behavioural characteristic.

Such profiling becomes legally problematic when unsupported genetic predictions are presented as established scientific facts and used to disadvantage individuals.

3.5 False genetic profiling through artificial intelligence

Genetic algorithms and automated genomic analysis may generate inaccurate classifications because of:

Defective training datasets.

Population bias.

Incorrect statistical assumptions.

Inadequate validation.

Algorithmic errors.

Inappropriate extrapolation from limited genetic information.

The organization deploying such systems may face liability depending on its role, degree of control, applicable professional standards, and the resulting harm.

4. Legal framework governing false genetic profiling in India

False genetic profiling can give rise to several overlapping forms of legal liability.

4.1 Constitutional liability under Article 21

Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects life and personal liberty. Its interpretation includes:

Right to privacy.

Right to dignity.

Bodily autonomy.

Informational privacy.

Personal identity.

Protection against arbitrary interference with intimate family matters.

When a public authority creates, maintains, or uses false genetic information, the affected individual may challenge the action as an infringement of Article 21.

For example, if a government laboratory falsely identifies an individual as the source of biological material in a criminal investigation, the resulting infringement may extend beyond scientific error to personal liberty, reputation, and dignity.

4.2 Constitutional liability under Article 14

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

False genetic profiling may violate Article 14 when public authorities:

Classify individuals on the basis of fabricated genetic information.

Use scientifically unreliable genetic classifications.

Deny public benefits on the basis of false genetic predictions.

Apply discriminatory genetic criteria.

Make arbitrary administrative decisions using inaccurate genetic information.

Where arbitrary state action causes injury, constitutional remedies may be available.

4.3 Civil liability for negligence

A genetic testing laboratory or medical institution may be liable in negligence if it fails to exercise reasonable professional care.

The claimant generally needs to establish:

A duty of care.

Breach of the applicable standard of care.

Causation between the breach and the injury.

Legally recoverable damage.

Illustration: A laboratory receives DNA samples from two individuals but mistakenly exchanges their identification labels. It subsequently issues a report declaring that one individual is the biological parent of a child. The report causes family separation and financial loss.

The laboratory may face civil liability for negligent sample management, inaccurate reporting, and foreseeable consequences.

4.4 Medical negligence liability

Medical professionals may be liable when they rely on false genetic information without appropriate verification or when they negligently communicate genetic findings.

Examples include:

Diagnosing a hereditary disorder on the basis of an incorrectly interpreted test.

Recommending unnecessary surgery.

Prescribing inappropriate treatment.

Providing incorrect reproductive counselling.

Failing to explain the uncertainty of a genetic result.

The applicable standard is the standard of reasonable professional competence in the circumstances.

4.5 Consumer protection liability

Genetic testing services may constitute services under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

A consumer may seek relief where a testing company provides defective or deficient services, including:

Incorrect genetic reports.

Failure to follow promised testing protocols.

Misrepresentation of testing accuracy.

Failure to disclose material limitations.

Negligent handling of biological samples.

Depending on the facts, the consumer may seek compensation, refund, replacement of services, or other appropriate relief.

4.6 Data protection and confidentiality liability

Genetic information is highly personal information. Where it identifies or relates to an identifiable individual, it falls within the concept of digital personal data under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, when processed in digital form and within the Act's scope.

Relevant concerns include:

Processing without a valid legal basis.

Unauthorized disclosure.

Unlawful sharing with third parties.

Inadequate security safeguards.

Unauthorized secondary use.

Improper retention of genetic information.

The Act does not create a separate statutory category expressly named genetic data. Nevertheless, identifiable genetic information can qualify as personal data.

A person must distinguish liability for generating a false genetic profile from liability for unlawfully processing or disclosing genetic information. Both may arise from the same incident.

5. Important case laws relating to false genetic profiling

The following judgments are particularly important. Some directly concern DNA testing and genetic information, while others establish the broader principles of privacy, scientific evidence, and professional responsibility applicable to false genetic profiling.

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

Foundational Indian constitutional judgment

Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Facts:

The case concerned the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar identification scheme and the broader question of whether the right to privacy is protected under the Indian Constitution.

A nine-judge Constitution Bench examined the relationship between privacy, personal liberty, dignity, and individual autonomy.

Legal issues:

Whether privacy is a fundamental right.

Whether individuals have control over personal information.

Whether informational privacy is protected by Article 21.

Whether the State can collect and process personal information without adequate safeguards.

Judgment:

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

The Court explained that privacy includes:

Bodily privacy.

Informational privacy.

Privacy of personal choices.

Individual autonomy.

Human dignity.

It also recognized that informational privacy may be threatened by both State and non-State actors.

The Court established a three-fold test for restrictions on privacy:

Legality: There must be a valid law authorizing the interference.

Legitimate aim: The interference must pursue a legitimate objective.

Proportionality: The measure must be proportionate to that objective.

Relevance to false genetic profiling:

This judgment provides an important constitutional foundation for challenging false genetic profiling.

Genetic information is closely connected with identity, family relationships, health, and biological characteristics.

Therefore, if a government agency or other legally accountable entity uses inaccurate genetic information to interfere with an individual's rights, the individual may invoke the principles of privacy, dignity, and autonomy recognized in this judgment.

Legal principle: Personal information cannot be subjected to arbitrary collection, processing, or use in a manner inconsistent with constitutional privacy protections.

Indian Kanoon+1

Case 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 scientific investigative techniques, including:

Narcoanalysis.

Polygraph examinations.

Brain Electrical Activation Profile tests.

The accused persons challenged the use of these techniques without their consent.

Legal issues:

Whether involuntary scientific testing violates Article 20(3).

Whether such testing infringes personal liberty under Article 21.

Whether scientific investigative techniques can be used without informed consent.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that the involuntary administration of the impugned techniques violates the protection against testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) and the right to personal liberty under Article 21.

The Court emphasized the importance of mental privacy and individual autonomy.

Relevance to false genetic profiling:

Although the case did not directly concern inaccurate DNA profiling, its principles are relevant where genetic testing is imposed through unlawful coercion.

For example:

A person is subjected to genetic testing without lawful authority.

Genetic information is obtained through an unconstitutional procedure.

Genetic information is used to make unsupported allegations against an individual.

The judgment supports the principle that scientific investigative methods cannot override fundamental rights.

Legal principle: Scientific investigation must respect constitutional safeguards, bodily autonomy, and the protection against testimonial compulsion.

Indian Kanoon

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

Important international genetic privacy judgment

Citation: Applications Nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, Judgment dated 4 December 2008.

Court: European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber.

Facts:

The applicants had been arrested in separate criminal cases. One was acquitted, while proceedings against the other were discontinued.

Nevertheless, the authorities retained their:

Fingerprints.

Cellular samples.

DNA profiles.

The applicants challenged the indefinite retention of their genetic information.

Legal issues:

Whether DNA samples and profiles constitute private information.

Whether retaining genetic information interferes with privacy.

Whether indefinite retention of DNA information is proportionate.

Whether the State can retain genetic information without adequate safeguards.

Judgment:

The European Court of Human Rights held that retaining the applicants' DNA samples and profiles violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court emphasized that cellular samples contain highly sensitive information concerning an individual's health and genetic characteristics.

It also recognized that DNA profiles can reveal familial relationships and may permit inferences about ethnic origin.

The Court found that the indiscriminate and indefinite retention of genetic information was disproportionate.

Relevance to false genetic profiling:

This case is highly relevant because it recognizes the sensitive character of genetic information.

If authorities retain or process inaccurate genetic profiles, the resulting interference may raise concerns involving:

Privacy.

Genetic identity.

Familial information.

Reputational harm.

Unauthorized profiling.

It also demonstrates the need for safeguards against misuse of genetic databases.

Legal principle: Genetic information deserves heightened privacy protection, and its collection, retention, and processing must be subject to appropriate legal safeguards.

Bailii+2

Case 4. Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993)

Citation: (1993) 3 SCC 418.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Facts:

The dispute concerned an application seeking a blood test to determine the paternity of a child.

The Court considered whether a person could be compelled to undergo scientific testing to determine biological parentage.

Legal issues:

Whether courts can routinely direct blood tests.

Whether scientific testing can be ordered without sufficient evidence.

Whether the interests and dignity of the child and mother must be considered.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court laid down important principles:

Courts cannot order blood tests as a matter of routine.

Applications seeking a roving inquiry into parentage should not ordinarily be entertained.

A strong prima facie case must be established.

Courts must consider the consequences of the test, including possible social stigma.

A person cannot ordinarily be compelled to provide a blood sample without proper legal justification.

Relevance to false genetic profiling:

This judgment is relevant because it prevents the indiscriminate use of genetic testing.

A person cannot simply demand genetic testing and treat the resulting profile as an unquestionable basis for allegations about another individual's biological identity.

The case also highlights the importance of dignity and the potential consequences of genetic conclusions.

Legal principle: Genetic testing must be justified by sufficient evidence and cannot be used as an unrestricted investigative exercise.

SCI API

Case 5. Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003)

Citation: (2003) 4 SCC 493.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Facts:

The case concerned matrimonial proceedings in which one party sought a medical examination of the other to resolve disputed issues.

The Supreme Court examined the authority of matrimonial courts to direct medical examinations.

Legal issues:

Whether a court can order medical examinations.

Whether such directions violate personal liberty.

Whether refusal to undergo examination can have evidentiary consequences.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that a matrimonial court possesses the power to direct a medical examination in appropriate circumstances.

However, the power must be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily.

The Court emphasized that the order must be justified by the facts and circumstances of the case.

Relevance to false genetic profiling:

The judgment is relevant to disputes involving genetic testing in matrimonial and parentage proceedings.

It establishes that scientific testing may be ordered where legally justified, but it does not give courts unrestricted authority to intrude into an individual's personal and biological privacy.

Legal principle: Medical examination must be supported by sufficient legal justification and appropriate judicial consideration.

SCI API

Case 6. Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women (2010)

Citation: (2010) 8 SCC 633.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Facts:

The case concerned a dispute involving allegations relating to parentage and a request for DNA testing.

The Court considered whether DNA testing should be ordered without examining the existing evidence.

Legal issues:

Whether DNA testing should be routinely directed.

Whether a court must establish a strong prima facie case.

Whether the interests of the persons concerned must be balanced.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that DNA testing should not be ordered mechanically.

The Court must examine:

The evidence already available.

The necessity of the test.

The rights and interests of the parties.

The consequences of testing.

The privacy and dignity of the individuals concerned.

Relevance to false genetic profiling:

This case is relevant to disputes involving disputed or unreliable genetic conclusions.

It supports the proposition that genetic testing is not automatically necessary merely because one party questions biological parentage.

It also reinforces the need for judicial scrutiny before genetic information is generated or used in sensitive disputes.

Legal principle: DNA testing must be based on necessity, sufficient evidence, and a proper balance of competing rights.

SCI API

Case 7. Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2024)

Citation: (2024) 7 SCC 773.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Facts:

The case involved matrimonial litigation and a request for DNA testing of a child.

The Supreme Court considered the relationship between the privacy of the child, the rights of the parents, and the evidentiary value of genetic testing.

Legal issues:

Whether DNA testing should be directed merely because one spouse makes allegations of infidelity.

Whether the child's privacy must be protected.

Whether the court should consider the consequences of genetic testing.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court emphasized that DNA testing should not be ordered casually.

The court must consider the rights of the child and the potential harm arising from the disclosure of biological parentage.

The interests of the child cannot be ignored merely because the genetic test may assist one party in matrimonial litigation.

Relevance to false genetic profiling:

This judgment is significant because genetic profiling can affect individuals who are not themselves parties to the litigation.

An inaccurate or unnecessarily disclosed genetic profile may affect the identity, family relationships, and dignity of a child.

Legal principle: Genetic information must be handled with due regard to privacy, dignity, and the welfare of the persons affected.

SCI API

Case 8. Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025)

Recent Supreme Court authority

Citation: 2025 INSC 115, Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2025, decided on 28 January 2025.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Facts:

The case concerned a dispute over the biological paternity of a child born during the subsistence of a valid marriage.

The respondent and his mother alleged that Ivan Rathinam was the biological father and sought a DNA test.

Earlier proceedings had already recognized the child's legitimacy as the child of the mother's husband.

The dispute was reopened through maintenance proceedings.

Legal issues:

Whether a DNA test could be ordered merely on allegations of adultery.

Whether biological paternity could be investigated independently of the legal presumption of legitimacy.

Whether an individual has a right to refuse DNA testing.

Whether the privacy and dignity of the alleged biological father and mother must be protected.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court rejected the request for DNA testing in the circumstances of the case.

It emphasized that privacy and dignity must be balanced against the interest of a person seeking to establish biological parentage.

The Court explained that a DNA test should be considered only after:

Examining the existing evidence.

Determining whether the evidence is insufficient.

Evaluating whether there is an eminent need for the test.

Balancing the interests of all affected individuals.

Ensuring that the test will not cause undue harm.

The Court also observed that an allegation of adultery alone does not displace the statutory presumption of legitimacy.

Relevance to false genetic profiling:

This is particularly important for the legal treatment of genetic information in India.

It reinforces the proposition that genetic testing must not become a tool for:

Unjustified allegations.

Reputational attacks.

Intrusive investigations into family relationships.

Unnecessary disclosure of intimate biological information.

It is also relevant to the consequences of false genetic conclusions, since the Court recognizes the potentially irreversible effects on reputation, dignity, and mental well-being.

Legal principle: A DNA test requires evidentiary necessity and a proper balance of privacy, dignity, and competing interests; it cannot be used as a roving inquiry into private life.

SCI API+1

Case 9. Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2014)

Citation: (2014) 2 SCC 576.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Facts:

The dispute concerned maintenance and the question of biological paternity.

The parties had undergone DNA testing, and the result contradicted the ordinary presumption of paternity.

Legal issue:

Whether scientific DNA evidence could be considered when it conflicted with the legal presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court considered the evidentiary significance of DNA results and held, in the circumstances before it, that scientific evidence could prevail over the presumption where the test had been voluntarily undertaken and its validity was not disputed.

Relevance to false genetic profiling:

The case demonstrates the importance of scientific accuracy in genetic evidence.

However, it must not be interpreted as holding that every DNA report is automatically conclusive or immune from challenge.

A party may still question:

The identity of the samples.

Laboratory procedures.

Contamination.

Reliability of the testing method.

Accuracy of interpretation.

Legal principle: DNA evidence has significant evidentiary value, but the circumstances of testing and reliability of the result remain important.

SCI API

Case 10. Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (2015)

Citation: (2015) 1 SCC 365.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Facts:

The case arose from matrimonial proceedings involving allegations of adultery.

The husband sought DNA testing to establish whether the child was biologically his.

Legal issues:

Whether DNA testing could be directed in matrimonial proceedings.

Whether refusal to undergo testing could have evidentiary consequences.

Whether genetic testing was relevant to proving adultery.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court permitted DNA testing in the circumstances of the case and considered the consequences of refusal.

The Court distinguished the question of proving adultery from the separate legal presumption concerning the child's legitimacy.

Relevance to false genetic profiling:

The judgment illustrates that genetic evidence may have important legal consequences in matrimonial disputes.

However, the decision does not authorize false or scientifically unsupported genetic conclusions.

A report must still be properly obtained, interpreted, and assessed.

Legal principle: DNA evidence can be relevant in matrimonial proceedings, but its use must be confined to the legal issues and circumstances justifying the test.

SCI API

Case 11. Maryland v. King (2013)

Citation: 569 U.S. 435 (2013).

Court: Supreme Court of the United States.

Facts:

The case involved the collection of DNA samples from persons arrested for serious offences under Maryland law.

The accused challenged the constitutionality of DNA collection during the booking process.

Legal issue:

Whether taking a DNA sample from a person arrested for a serious offence constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

Judgment:

The US Supreme Court upheld the DNA collection procedure in the specific circumstances of the case.

It treated the DNA collection as a legitimate identification procedure associated with booking following a valid arrest for a serious offence.

The Court also considered the statutory safeguards governing the testing of DNA.

Relevance to false genetic profiling:

The judgment is useful for understanding the distinction between:

Lawful DNA identification.

Unauthorized genetic investigation.

Inaccurate DNA matching.

Misuse of genetic information.

It does not establish that all DNA collection or genetic profiling is lawful.

Legal principle: Genetic identification must be evaluated in its legal context, including the purpose of collection, the nature of the intrusion, and the safeguards against misuse.

LII / Legal Information Institute

6. Liability of different persons and institutions

False genetic profiling can involve several potentially responsible parties.

7. Criminal liability for deliberate false genetic profiling

Where false genetic profiling is intentional, criminal liability may arise depending on the specific conduct.

Examples include:

A. Fabrication of evidence

A person who deliberately fabricates genetic evidence for use in judicial proceedings may attract applicable criminal provisions relating to false evidence and fabrication of false evidence.

B. Forgery and falsification

Deliberately altering a DNA report, falsifying laboratory records, or manufacturing a false genetic certificate may attract provisions concerning forgery and the use of forged documents.

C. Cheating

A testing company that knowingly issues fabricated genetic reports to obtain money or deceive customers may attract criminal liability for cheating where the statutory ingredients are established.

D. Criminal conspiracy

Where several persons collaborate to fabricate genetic evidence or use it to commit an offence, conspiracy provisions may become applicable.

E. Unauthorized access or disclosure

Unauthorized access to or alteration of computerized genetic records may attract relevant provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000, depending on the facts.

The applicable criminal provisions must be determined under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and other relevant legislation, rather than assuming that every incorrect genetic report constitutes a criminal offence.

8. Major types of damage caused by false genetic profiling

8.1 Physical injury

Incorrect genetic diagnosis may result in:

Unnecessary medication.

Incorrect surgical procedures.

Delayed treatment.

Failure to diagnose the actual disease.

Harmful medical interventions.

8.2 Psychological injury

A person wrongly classified as genetically predisposed to a serious hereditary disease may experience:

Anxiety.

Depression.

Fear of future illness.

Psychological distress.

Family conflict.

Psychiatric injury claims require appropriate proof and must satisfy the relevant legal requirements.

8.3 Reputational injury

False genetic parentage reports or criminal DNA identification may damage an individual's reputation.

8.4 Economic injury

Incorrect genetic information may cause:

Loss of employment opportunities.

Financial loss from unnecessary medical treatment.

Loss of business opportunities.

Wrongful denial of insurance benefits.

Expenses incurred in correcting inaccurate records.

8.5 Violation of family and personal identity

False genetic profiling may create confusion concerning:

Biological parentage.

Hereditary relationships.

Family identity.

Inheritance.

Personal history.

These consequences may support claims for appropriate legal relief where a recognized cause of action is established.

9. Remedies available to victims of false genetic profiling in India

An individual affected by false genetic profiling may pursue different remedies depending on the nature of the wrong.

A. Constitutional remedies

Where the wrongful profiling involves State action or infringement of fundamental rights, the victim may approach:

Supreme Court under Article 32.

High Court under Article 226.

Possible relief includes:

Declaration of violation of fundamental rights.

Appropriate compensation in cases of established public-law violations.

Correction or deletion of inaccurate government records where legally justified.

Directions preventing further unauthorized use of genetic information.

Appropriate safeguards against future misuse.

B. Civil compensation

A victim may institute civil proceedings seeking compensation for:

Negligence.

Defamation.

Breach of confidentiality.

Misrepresentation.

Other legally recognized civil wrongs.

The availability and amount of compensation depend upon proof of the cause of action, injury, and causation.

C. Consumer remedies

Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer may approach the appropriate Consumer Commission where defective genetic testing or deficient professional services cause legally recognizable harm.

Relief may include:

Compensation.

Refund of testing charges.

Removal of deficiencies.

Other appropriate consumer remedies.

D. Data protection remedies

Where digital genetic information is unlawfully processed, the affected individual may exercise applicable rights under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, subject to its commencement, applicable provisions, and exemptions.

These may include:

Seeking correction of inaccurate personal data.

Seeking erasure where legally available.

Raising grievances with the Data Fiduciary.

Approaching the Data Protection Board through the applicable statutory process.

E. Criminal remedies

Where genetic information is deliberately fabricated, manipulated, or used to commit an offence, the victim may approach the police or other competent criminal authorities.

10. Evidentiary requirements for proving false genetic profiling

A successful claim requires reliable evidence demonstrating that the genetic profile was incorrect and that the responsible party committed a legally actionable wrong.

The following evidence may be particularly useful:

Importance of independent expert examination

An independent forensic geneticist may examine:

Whether the correct biological sample was tested.

Whether contamination occurred.

Whether the testing method was scientifically appropriate.

Whether the laboratory correctly interpreted the genetic markers.

Whether the statistical conclusions were justified.

Whether the final report accurately reflected the test results.

An independent examination can be particularly important because a disagreement between two genetic reports does not, by itself, establish which report is incorrect.

11. Important statutory provisions to remember

Important statutory update: The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with effect from 1 July 2024. Section 116 now contains the presumption concerning legitimacy that was previously contained in Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The judgments discussed above may refer to the earlier statutory provision because they were decided under the earlier legislation.

12. Defences available against allegations of false genetic profiling

A defendant or institution accused of false genetic profiling may raise the following defences, depending on the facts.

1. Absence of negligence: The institution followed appropriate scientific and professional procedures.

2. Scientific limitations: The report accurately disclosed the limitations and uncertainty of the genetic analysis.

3. No causation: The alleged injury was not caused by the genetic report.

4. Informed consent: The individual voluntarily agreed to the testing and its disclosed purposes, where consent was legally required.

5. Independent interference: The harm resulted from an independent intervening act rather than the defendant's conduct.

6. Lawful authority: The collection or processing was authorized by applicable law and satisfied constitutional safeguards.

7. No actionable damage: The claimant cannot establish legally recognizable injury or loss.

These defences are not automatically successful merely because a laboratory possesses accreditation or the individual signed a consent form.

13. Critical legal principles emerging from the case laws

The important judgments discussed above establish the following propositions:

14. Conclusion

Liability for false genetic profiling represents an important intersection of constitutional law, medical negligence, forensic science, biotechnology regulation, data protection, and civil and criminal liability.

Genetic information is not merely ordinary personal information. It may reveal an individual's biological identity, hereditary characteristics, health risks, and family relationships. Consequently, inaccurate genetic profiling can produce serious consequences for personal liberty, dignity, reputation, privacy, family life, and economic security.

Indian constitutional jurisprudence, particularly K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, establishes privacy and informational autonomy as fundamental rights. The decisions in Goutam Kundu, Bhabani Prasad Jena, Aparna Ajinkya Firodia, and Ivan Rathinam further demonstrate that genetic testing must be approached cautiously and with due regard to the interests of everyone affected.

The central legal proposition is:

No individual or institution should be permitted to generate, communicate, or exploit scientifically inaccurate genetic information in a manner that unlawfully damages another person's privacy, dignity, liberty, reputation, or legally protected interests. Where the applicable elements of negligence, constitutional infringement, statutory violation, or criminal wrongdoing are established, appropriate legal liability and remedies may follow.

15. Important judgments and original legal sources for further study

These are useful starting points for researching the subject in greater depth.

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) – Constitutional right to privacy.

Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) – Scientific investigative techniques and constitutional rights.

S. and Marper v. United Kingdom (2008) – DNA privacy and retention.

Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025) – Recent Supreme Court judgment on DNA testing, dignity and privacy.

Maryland v. King (2013) – DNA identification and constitutional safeguards.

Academic note: There is no single Indian Supreme Court judgment establishing a separate, comprehensive tort called "false genetic profiling." The legal framework must be constructed from established principles governing privacy, negligence, forensic evidence, consumer protection, data protection, and criminal wrongdoing. This distinction is important when using the subject in a research paper, dissertation, or legal examination.