In the modern age of great medical and technological advancements, we have created a world where adults’ interests can be satisfied at the click of a button ~ DNA paternity tests ordered online, scandals shared across social media within minutes. In this rush, we ignore the most fundamental question: what about the children and their rights?
Two recent incidents ~ one from an IVF clinic, another from a stadium kiss-cam gone viral ~ may seem unrelated on the surface. But they reveal the same disturbing truth: when adult interests collide with children’s welfare, we try to protect the former and sacrifice the latter. These expose how easily we ignore our most sacred responsibility ~ protecting our children who cannot protect themselves. A disturbing case recently emerged from Hyderabad, where a couple who conceived a child through IVF allegedly subjected their child ~ reportedly unwell ~ to a DNA paternity test. The test, reportedly cond – ucted after suspicions of a fertility clinic mix-up, indicated that the husband was not the biological father. While police have registered a case and laun – ched an investigation into possible medical negligence, the focus so far has been on the clinic.
But what about the rights of the child? This incident raises a critical question that has gone largely unexamined: can a child ~ battling illness ~ be subjected to DNA testing without its consent? The emotional, psychological, and legal ramifications of such an act are far-reaching. India is bound by both do – mestic constitutional guarantees and international conventions that affirm the dignity, identity, and privacy of children. Article 21 of the Constitution gu – arantees every individual the right to life and personal liberty, which has been expansively interpreted to include dignity and privacy.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which India ratified in 1992, enshrines the child’s right to preserve identity (Article 8), express views (Article 12), and be protected from arbitrary interference with privacy and family (Article 16). The Supreme Court’s 2023 judgment in Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia stressed that DNA testing of children must not be treated as routine. The Court held that “children are not to be treated like material objects and subjected to forensic testing” unless it serves the child’s welfare. In that case, the Court restrained any such testing unless it was judicially mandated in proceedings where the child’s best interest was the central concern.
Today, DNA kits are increasingly being offered online by private companies for as little as Rs 15,000. One such provider advertises that its “user-friendly home DNA sample collection kit” can be posted anywhere in India, with results emailed directly. These kits are increasingly accessible to any parent or relative who may harbour suspicion or curiosity. For children, this is not merely a technical or medical issue. It amounts to psychological violence. A paternity test can destabilize a child’s emotional universe and destroy their sense of belonging. In some cases, it can even lead to abandonment or stigma.
The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 is categorical: Section 31(1) states that “a child born through ART shall be deemed to be the biological child of the commissioning couple” and is entitled to all the rights of a natural child. Section 33(1)(a) prohibits any act to disown or exploit the child. DNA tests threaten to undermine this legal identity. When biological parentage becomes a litmus test for legitimacy, we are not just breaking laws ~ we are breaking children. In France, DNA paternity testing without a court order is illegal ~ even if done abroad. Articles 16- 10 to 16-13 of the French Civil Code prioritize legal and social parentage over biology, warning against the disruption of “the peace of families.”
Violators can face imprisonment and heavy fines. This stringent approach aims to prioritize social and legal ties in parentage over purely biological ones. India now faces a similar crossroads. On one hand, we cannot ignore the possibility of negligence or malpractice by fertility clinics. On the other, we must not respond with unregulated paternity tests that risk harming the very children we claim to protect. What we need is a dual-pronged approach: legal safeguards for children, and stricter oversight of clinics. One possible solution is for state governments to establish a government-regulated protocol whereby random or periodic DNA audits of children born via IVF can be conducted solely un – der the supervision of a statutory body ~ without disclosing the results to the parents.
The purpose should be to monitor clinic compliance, not to disrupt established families. If no regulatory bar is imposed on DNA tests now, there is a real risk that other families with IVF-born children may be encouraged or pressured to seek DNA testing, especially in moments of doubt or illness. This may unleash a wave of biological scrutiny, emotional distress, and the potential social orphaning of children who may be rejected or stigmatised despite being raised as part of their families. Government should issue directions to bar both government and private DNA laboratories from conducting paternity or legitimacy-related DNA tests on minors, unless specifically ordered by a competent court in proceedings where the child’s welfare is central and judicially assessed.
While the earlier case reveals how children’s rights are violated in the shadow of medical decisions, the recent Coldplay concert incident in Boston, USA, shows how they suffer in the glare of public spectacle. The story of a now-former CEO and the head of HR of a data orchestration company ~ caught in an intimate moment on a stadium “kiss cam” ~ triggered a storm of online commentary, upending careers and un – leashing relentless scrutiny of their personal and professional lives across the digital space. But in the rush to judge, share, and meme, we have trampled upon the lives of the most vulnerable and innocent parties in this entire affair: their children. While their parents’ actions might have un – necessarily made them public figures, their children remain private citizens. They are of school age and never asked for this notoriety.
They did not consent to have their family’s private turmoil broadcast to the world. And yet, they are the ones who may bear the steepest price. The fallout can include the loss of breadwinners, disrupted careers, economic hardship, and strained or broken family bonds. But above all, the most unbearable consequence is the stigma ~ a silent, persistent weight that follows them into classrooms, playgrounds, and friendships. How does a child face classmates the day after their parent becomes a viral sensation for all the wrong reasons? How do they process the whispers in the hallway, the snickering, the screenshots shared in group chats? The digital footprint of this scandal is permanent. It will follow these children, shaping their social interactions and their own sense of self for years to come.
The stigma attached to this kind of public shaming is a heavy burden for any adult to bear; for a child, it can be crushing. This is not a matter of opinion; it is a recognized psychological reality. Child development experts consistently warn that the public shaming of a parent can inflict deep and lasting trauma on a child. It can shatter their sense of security, lead to anxiety, depression, and social isolation. They may internalize the shame, blaming themselves for the chaos that has engulfed their family. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is unequivocal on this point. Article 16 states that every child has a right to privacy and protection from “unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.” Such protection is lost when the internet appoints itself judge, jury, and executioner of their parents. Ethical guidelines for reporting on children, like those from UNICEF, stress the principle of “do no harm.”
This includes protecting children from stories and images that might put them at risk of retribution or stigmatization. Unless a crime involving national security, public safety, or a serious legal violation is committed, there is no justification for dragging families ~ especially kids ~ into public shaming. The adults in this story will navigate the consequences of their choices. But for their children, who had no say in the matter, the consequences are unjust. The media, the public, and institutions must adopt a child-sensitive lens when reporting or amplifying personal controversies. A first, crucial step would be for responsible media agencies to remove the photos and videos of this incident from their web reports. Having done sufficient damage, this act would be a small but significant gesture of assurance. For the future, they must be conscious of these concerns from the outset.
Today, we don’t have a Jesus Christ living among us in flesh and blood to calmly remind us: “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And even that person ~ if she or he exists ~ should first see the child standing behind the victim before casting the stone. These two incidents, though different in their specifics, require the same solution: treating children as human beings with rights, emotions, and legal identities. Children are not samples to be tested or casualties to be ignored in viral storms. They are persons to be protected. If society truly claims to protect its children, then it must act like it. The rights of the child are paramount and the guiding principle must always be the best interests of the child.
(The writer is a transparency and equality advocate and author)