As per case facts, a doctor appealed an intrusive High Court order compelling him to undergo DNA profiling to prove the paternity of a child born to a married woman, ... a fact the woman asserted was central to her criminal complaint of cheating and harassment. The question arose whether the High Court was justified in ordering the appellant to undergo compulsory DNA testing to establish the child's biological paternity, thereby dislodging the conclusive presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act in a criminal case. Finally, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order. The Court held that the legal presumption of the child's legitimacy by the husband stood unrebutted since the mother failed to provide concrete evidence of "non-access." The paternity issue was collateral to the criminal charges, not "eminently necessary." Compulsory DNA testing was deemed a grave intrusion on the fundamental right to privacy and bodily autonomy of the doctor and the now-adult child and was not proportional to the investigative need.