DNA profiling was sought by Rohit Shekhar who claims to be his biological son
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued a contempt notice to senior Congress leader N.D. Tiwari on a petition by Rohit Shekhar, who claims to be his biological son, for his prosecution for refusal to give his blood sample for DNA profiling.
Justice Gita Mittal, who had last week ruled that Mr. Tiwari cannot be forced to give his blood sample for DNA profiling, also asked the joint registrar of the Court to initiate proceedings for collection of blood samples of Rohit Shekhar, his mother Ujjwala Sharma and her former husband B.P. Sharma, for DNA tests to see if Mr. Shekhar is the son of the estranged couple.
Mr. Shekhar had filed the contempt petition against Mr. Tiwari when the latter persistently refused to appear at the High Court dispensary for giving his blood sample.
Justice Mittal directed the joint registrar to initiate the proceedings for the DNA tests of the three from October 20. Asking the joint registrar to fix a date for collection of blood samples of the three, she asked Mr. Tiwari to remain present at the dispensary on the day when they would give the samples so that he did not have any objection to the test reports.
The court also framed issues for determination of the paternity suit filed by Mr. Shekhar. It will now determine whether Mr. Shekhar is the biological son of Mr. Tiwari or whether he has filed the paternity suit to tarnish the image of the Congress leader and claim economic benefits from him.
In her earlier judgment allowing Mr. Tiwari's plea that he cannot be forced to give his blood sample, Justice Mittal said that she would not let the matter close without determining the parentage of Mr. Shekhar.
She had said that she would decide the matter on the basis of corroborative evidence.
Describing Mr. Tiwari's refusal as “wilful,” “mala fide,” “unreasonable” and “unjustified,” Justice Mittal had said: “The court would construe the weight to be attached to and the impact of this refusal by Mr. Tiwari while evaluating the evidence produced by the parties, which may be treated as corroborative evidence leading to the presumption that the result of the DNA profiling of Mr. Tiwari's blood sample would have supported the plaintiff's claim.”