The integration of DNA technology into forensic science has revolutionized criminal investigations, paternity disputes, and identification processes, offering unprecedented accuracy and reliability. However, its application raises significant legal and ethical challenges, particularly concerning the right to privacy. This paper examines the delicate balance between leveraging DNA evidence for justice and safeguarding individual privacy rights, analyzing international and domestic legal frameworks, recent judicial precedents, and ethical dilemmas. The study begins by exploring the legal foundations of privacy rights under international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It highlights landmark rulings like S and Marper v. UK (2008), where the European Court of Human Rights held that indefinite retention of DNA samples violates privacy rights. In the Indian context, the Supreme Court’s recognition of privacy as a fundamental right under Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) is critically examined, alongside cases like Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003) and Rohit Shekhar v. Narayan Dutt Tiwari (2011) which address compelled DNA testing in familial and criminal disputes. while Aparna Ajinkya (2023) establishes crucial safeguards against compelled DNA testing in matrimonial disputes. The ruling mandates that courts cannot order DNA tests mechanically and must balance privacy rights against evidentiary needs. Ethical challenges, including informed consent, familial DNA searching, genetic discrimination, and data retention, are analyzed to underscore the risks of misuse. Comparative legal approaches from the U.S., UK, Canada, and India are evaluated to identify best practices. The paper concludes with recommendations for a balanced legal framework, emphasizing legislative safeguards, judicial oversight, and ethical guidelines to harmonize forensic utility with privacy protection. By synthesizing judicial trends, ethical considerations, and policy gaps, this paper advocates for a nuanced approach that upholds both justice and individual rights in the era of genetic forensics.