New Delhi, March 14 (IANS) The Supreme Court Monday asked veteran Congress leader Narayan Dutt Tiwari, embroiled in paternity suit, to suggest an alternative to DNA testing through a blood sample.
An apex court bench of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice R.M. Lodha said this after senior counsel Ashok Desai, appearing for Tiwari, suggested that the DNA test could be carried out on a hair sample instead of taking a blood specimen.
The matter will come up for hearing Friday by which time both the parties will inform the court about the alternative DNA test they prefer.
The apex court was hearing Tiwari’s plea challenging a Delhi High Court order directing him to undergo a DNA test on a suit filed by a man claiming to be his biological son.
If the test is carried out, its report will be kept in a sealed cover till the paternity suit is decided by the Delhi High Court.
The 85-year-old leader appealed that the high court’s Dec 23, 2010 order on Rohit Shekhar’s suit was based on misreading of the law.
Tiwari in his appeal had said that if the high court order was not stayed, it would violate his right to privacy and damage his reputation.
The high court bench said: “On the facts of this case and the materials on record, the court is satisfied that there is eminent need to direct the first defendant (Tiwari) to furnish his blood samples, for the purposes of DNA testing.”
On Jan 24, 2011, Tiwari approached a two-judge bench of the high court challenging the single judge’s order. However, the two-judge bench did not give any relief to him.
The apex court May 10, 2010 rejected Tiwari’s plea challenging the high court’s decision to hear Shekhar’s suit.
Tiwari, who had held the posts of chief minister of undivided Uttar Pradesh and later Uttarakhand, had opposed the paternity suit.
Tiwari, who last year resigned as Andhra Pradesh governor in the wake of allegations of sexual misconduct, countered the claims and said he never had any physical relationship with Shekhar’s mother Ujjwala, who is also a Congress activist. Shekhar, he said, was not entitled to seek a DNA test as a matter of right.