There is a need for standardised protocols, institutional reforms, and urgent policy actions to safeguard forensic evidence, prevent wrongful convictions, and align Jammu & Kashmir’s forensic system with national and international best practices
This submission is made in light of the Supreme Court’s nationwide emphasis on the urgent need to institutionalise norms for the proper collection, preservation, and admissibility of DNA evidence. As someone with a foundational background in the sciences and further specialised training in the theories, principles, and methodologies of forensic science, I fully recognise that trace evidence, though often invisible to the naked eye, can carry the decisive weight of proof in any criminal adjudication. Critically, such evidence serves not only to establish culpability but also to affirm innocence, thereby safeguarding the foundational principle of justice.
In forensic jurisprudence, Locard’s Exchange Principle—that every contact leaves a trace—is far more than a theoretical construct; it represents a scientific doctrine with deep procedural consequences. The integrity of DNA, fibre, or biological trace evidence is highly susceptible to contamination, degradation, or loss, especially in the crucial early moments following an incident. If improperly handled, these materials lose their probative value, compromising both investigation and trial. Given the scientific fragility of such materials, and their constitutional significance under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (right to life and personal liberty), it is imperative that investigative agencies no longer treat forensic evidence as an auxiliary input. Instead, a forensic-first approach, supported by standardised national protocols and supervised by qualified experts, must become the norm. This is not only a matter of evidentiary reliability but appropriately a safeguard against wrongful conviction and institutional miscarriage of justice.
However, the prevailing architecture of criminal investigation in India reveals a troubling procedural asymmetry. Forensic professionals, those most qualified to safeguard evidentiary integrity, are often introduced only at the terminal stages of the evidence lifecycle, typically after scenes have been disturbed, contaminated, or when biological materials have degraded beyond admissibility thresholds. This delay is not incidental; it is structural. The most sensitive and determinative stages of an inquiry, including collection, preservation, and initial documentation, are frequently controlled by Investigating Officers (IOs) coming from the Police Department who, while well-versed in procedural law, are not scientifically trained to handle complex biological, chemical, or trace evidence in accordance with internationally recognised forensic protocols.
Under current legal frameworks, IOs are granted wide discretionary authority over the handling, storage, and interpretation of forensic evidence, with limited oversight or scientific supervision. This unchecked discretion has repeatedly led to procedural lapses that have compromised evidentiary admissibility and judicial credibility.
This concern was sharply addressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu, where the accused, originally sentenced to death for charges of double homicide and sexual assault, was acquitted solely on account of grave procedural lapses in the collection and handling of DNA evidence. The acquittal was not a commentary on the factual circumstances of the crime, but rather an indictment of institutional failure to preserve the evidentiary chain of custody, rendering the DNA sample legally and scientifically unreliable.
In its ruling, authored by Justices Sanjay Karol, Vikram Nath, and Sandeep Mehta, the Apex Court acknowledged that DNA evidence, while scientifically powerful, is also scientifically fragile—highly susceptible to contamination, degradation, mislabelling, and secondary transfer. Recognising the lack of standardisation in investigative practices, the Court issued binding procedural directives aimed at eliminating discretionary inconsistencies in the forensic handling of DNA.
These directives, which seek to align forensic procedures on investigation, are intended to standardise the evidentiary chain and uphold the integrity of DNA evidence, long recognised as one of the most probative yet sensitive forms of forensic material, while emphasising the following imperatives:
- Documentation at the point of collection
DNA sample collection must be performed with full procedural compliance, including sterile packaging and meticulous labelling.
Labels must include:
(a) FIR number and date
(b) Relevant legal sections and statutes
(c) Investigating Officer’s details and police station
(d) Unique serial number of the sample
A contemporaneous document, signed by the attending medical professional, the IO, and wherever possible any independent witnesses, shall accompany each sample. While absence of independent witnesses shall not invalidate the collection, the IO must record the efforts made to procure such witnesses and explain their absence in writing.
- Timely and preserved transportation
The IO assumes full responsibility for the secure and documented transport of DNA samples to the police station, hospital, or directly to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), as the case may be.
The sample must reach the FSL within 48 hours of collection. Any delay beyond this threshold must be documented in the case diary, with reasons clearly recorded.
The sample must be stored and transported under scientifically appropriate conditions to prevent degradation, in alignment with the type of biological material collected.
- Tamper-proof judicial oversight
During pending trial or appeal, no sample may be opened, altered, or resealed without prior judicial approval.
The Trial Court may authorise reopening only upon a certified statement by a qualified medical professional affirming that such action is essential and will not compromise evidentiary integrity.
This process ensures that any secondary analysis is scientifically warranted and legally supervised.
- Mandatory chain of custody register
A chain of custody register must be initiated at the time of collection and maintained until the final adjudication—conviction or acquittal.
Every transfer of custody must be logged with time, date, signatures, and rationale for the movement.
This register shall be appended to the Trial Court’s official record, and failure to maintain it will subject the IO to accountability and explanation before the court.
In light of these observations and the consequent guidelines, the Directors General of Police (DGPs) of all states and union territories have been directed to create uniform documentation templates and disseminate them to all districts to ensure consistent compliance.
The Challenge in Jammu & Kashmir: A Forensic Blind Spot
Despite the national momentum toward forensic accountability, Jammu & Kashmir continues to lag behind in institutionalising forensic education, research infrastructure, and procedural implementation. Unlike other regions that have begun investing in forensic labs and evidence-handling capacity, J&K lacks a dedicated forensic sciences university or a standardised training framework for IOs and judicial stakeholders. Given the region’s complex socio-political and legal terrain, failure to act now could deepen evidentiary deficits, lead to wrongful acquittals or convictions, and erode public trust in the justice system. This is particularly urgent in light of the new criminal codes—namely Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam—which envision a digitally enabled, evidence-based justice architecture.
Therefore, it is no longer sufficient for J\&K to rely on procedural improvisation. The directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court constitute not merely administrative instructions, but a binding roadmap toward scientific due process under Article 21 of the Constitution. The moment calls for immediate policy activation, budgetary allocation, and institutional reform, especially in evidence management training, forensic documentation, and independent lab accreditation.
Accordingly, if forensic science is to serve justice in the 21st century, it must be rooted not in discretion, but in rigour. Therefore, for Jammu & Kashmir, the question no longer remains whether the region should act or not, as that point has long passed. The real and pressing issue is how soon and how effectively the Union Territory will respond to bridge the widening chasm in its forensic and investigative infrastructure. The stakes are no longer theoretical. They are constitutional, scientific, and civic. With forensic science now central to the architecture of modern criminal justice, governance in J&K must evolve—not gradually, but with urgency and precision. This is not simply about adopting national guidelines; it is about embedding credibility, integrity, and procedural fidelity into the very structure of evidence-based governance.
Against this backdrop and based on the judicial directives, administrative insights, and scientific realities laid out above, the following policy recommendations are advanced for immediate consideration by the Jammu & Kashmir Administration:
- Establish a regional Forensic Sciences Institute in J&K
The Government of Jammu and Kashmir should collaborate with the National Forensic Sciences University (NFSU) and the Ministry of Home Affairs to establish a dedicated forensic sciences research and training institute in the Union Territory. This institute must support degree programmes, training for police and judiciary, and independent forensic services.
- Adopt the Supreme Court’s DNA evidence handling protocols
Issue an official circular across all police districts mandating compliance with the Supreme Court’s guidelines from Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu.
Appoint a Nodal Officer (Forensic Evidence) in every police district responsible for ensuring: chain of custody logs, refrigeration and preservation standards, sample dispatch within 48 hours, and documentation of deviations.
- Digitise the Chain of Custody process
Develop a J&K-specific digital platform (integrated with JK Police and State FSLs) to log: time and location of DNA sample collection, custody transfer checkpoints, and sample condition at each stage.
The system should allow real-time oversight by magistrates and designated forensic authorities.
- Mandatory training for Investigating Officers
Launch a certification-based forensic evidence handling programme for all IOs, in partnership with any forensic organisation, enabling the IOs to incorporate modules on: DNA collection and preservation, evidence admissibility under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, forensic ethics, and procedural compliance.
- Designate “Forensic Liaison Officers” in each district
Create a dedicated role within the district police setup to supervise evidence collection at crime scenes, liaise with FSLs, and submit monthly compliance reports to the DGP and Home Department.
- Judicial monitoring of DNA evidence cases
Request the High Court of J&K and Ladakh to direct all Sessions Courts to help maintain a record of DNA evidence chain of custody logs in every relevant case.
Question IOs on procedural compliance before evidence admission.
- Forensic audit of pending grave crime cases
Conduct an independent audit of rape, custodial death, and homicide cases registered since 2020 in J&K where forensic evidence was collected.
Assess the admissibility, lab timelines, and judicial outcomes to identify systemic gaps.
- Launch public awareness and victim rights campaigns
Use radio, local media, and digital platforms to inform the public about the role of DNA in justice delivery, victims’ rights to evidence preservation, and reporting procedural violations during investigations.
If J&K is to align with the goals of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, it must build a robust forensic ecosystem grounded in scientific credibility and legal accountability. These recommendations are not only corrective but are ethically constitutional imperatives to ensure that justice in the Union Territory is evidence-driven, transparent, and procedurally sound.
About the writer
Dr Sami Ullah is a forensic practitioner and anthropologist with an MSc and PhD in Forensic Science and an MA in Anthropology. As Co-Founder & Chairman at RADISAT Foundation, he advocates for forensic science education, real-time justice reforms, and scientific and research advancements in crime investigation and scientific reporting. Passionate about bridging the forensic science gap in Jammu & Kashmir, he works to integrate forensic science into academia, industry, private sector, law enforcement, and governance.
Dr Sami Ullah
sa********@***il.com