How systemic reforms and judicial initiatives can curb investigative biases and uphold the rule of law
By Dr Sami Ullah
This article interrogates the fractured interface between forensic science methodology and investigative discretion in India, with a sharper focus on the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. It argues for a justice system in which forensic science does not languish as a passive validator of police or investigative claims but instead assumes its rightful place as an active pillar of legal truth, institutional integrity, and systemic accountability.
Pertinently, forensic science, despite being the quiet cornerstone of justice, continues to be treated as a peripheral tool within India’s criminal justice delivery system. Its practitioners—whether forensic biologists, toxicologists, digital analysts, ballistics experts, document examiners, or scene-of-crime specialists—have always stood at the confluence of precision, integrity, and truth. Subsequent to what may initially appear a mystery in executive or judicial deliberations, forensic science renders the truth intelligible through reproducible methods and rigorously validated protocols. As such, their work has been duly acknowledged in transforming confusion into clarity, illusion into evidence, and suspicion into verifiable fact.
Because of this precision-based scientific approach, it largely helped to anchor the adjudication system not in conjecture or coercion but in empirical, verifiable evidence. From these aspects, it is apparent that the discipline’s enduring mission has been and is to ensure that decisions affecting life and liberty are made in neutrality, transparently, and scientifically, making the legal process specifically justice-oriented. In doing so, it establishes universal standards of objectivity that serve both prosecution and defence alike, thereby reinforcing justice as an impartial public good rather than an adversarial victory.
Despite its irreplaceable role in separating illusion from truth, forensic science continues to occupy the margins of India’s criminal justice delivery system, with marginalisation particularly evident in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Rigorously validated methodologies are too often sidelined, and practitioners undervalued—not due to any lack of relevance or reliability of forensic expertise but because of an entrenched dependence on outdated investigatory habits and conventional policing practices.
Even when forensic findings are secured, they remain vulnerable to dilution against legacy policing practices and the sweeping discretionary powers vested in Investigating Officers (IOs), most of whom are drawn from police cadres with little or no formal forensic literacy.
Under the prevailing jurisprudence, the Investigating Officer (IO) continues to exercise near-absolute autonomy in shaping the course of an investigation. The IO’s self-assumed belief of authority extends to deciding what evidence is to be collected, when and where it will be seized, and how it shall be filtered or withheld from judicial scrutiny. This discretion, unchecked by independent scientific oversight, effectively relegates forensic science to the margins—reducing evidence to a tool of convenience rather than a vehicle for unravelling empirical truth.
This troubling imbalance found its most telling expression in Khurshid Ahmad Chohan vs. UT of J&K (2025, SC). In this matter, grave allegations of custodial torture were conveniently camouflaged under the investigative narrative of a self-inflicted injury and an attempted suicide. Such framing, cloaked under the pretext of investigative discretion, effectively deprived the complainant of the constitutionally guaranteed right to an impartial and scientific evaluation of evidence, thereby undermining both due process and the fair trial mandate.
It was only after the complainant was compelled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the selective and self-serving nature of the investigative narrative was judicially unmasked. In recognising the probative face value of the sidelined evidence, the Court directed a CBI probe, thereby reaffirming that truth cannot be eclipsed by discretion but must be established through transparent, uninfluenced, rigorous, and fair scientific evidentiary evaluation.
Thus, in light of the settled principle regarding criminal investigations, the integrity of criminal investigations cannot rest upon the discretionary impulses of investigating officers but must be anchored in verifiable scientific methods. Where evidence is subjected to discretion rather than science, the fact-finding process stands compromised, and the right to a fair trial under Article 21 is imperilled. Justice, by its very nature, has never been permitted to rest on conjecture, expediency, or convenience but has always sought grounding in evidentiary certainty.
Such certainty does not arrive by accident but is the well-recognised outcome of painstaking processes where evidence is meticulously preserved, impartially analysed, and faithfully interpreted through rigorously validated protocols that belong squarely within the domain of forensic science. It is within this scientific discipline that the truth of law finds its most reliable anchor.
Forensic science must therefore claim its rightful stature—not as a peripheral adjunct to conventional policing but as the central guardian of legal truth and institutional accountability. To continue relegating it to the margins is to undermine the very promise of justice, while to elevate it as a co-equal partner in investigation is to safeguard both the Constitution’s spirit and the people’s faith in its institutions.
It is worth noting that investigative discretion was originally envisioned to provide operational flexibility in inquiries. However, over time, this discretion has evolved into a double-edged sword, enabling the selective use or outright omission of forensic procedures without reasoned justification or judicial review. The result has been the creation of a regime where procedural convenience eclipses evidentiary integrity, allowing subjective considerations to dominate objective scientific inquiry.
In practice, this has relegated forensic science—whose methodologies are universally recognised for their probative reliability and capacity to withstand the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”—to the status of a contingent accessory rather than a foundational mandate in the pursuit of justice. This culture of convenience has repeatedly manifested in grave lapses relating to crime scene recognition, contamination control, evidence preservation, and scrupulous documentation of the chain of custody.
Such failures are not mere administrative oversights but are, in fact, the structural hazards that corrode the very soul of the justice delivery system. Their impact is most visible in the frequent culmination of trials in acquittals, where convictions could reasonably have been secured had the evidentiary trail remained intact. The Supreme Court itself has acknowledged this danger in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006), observing that lapses in evidence collection and preservation fatally weaken the prosecution’s case, and in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999), where the Court stressed that procedural safeguards are not empty formalities but essential to ensuring evidentiary integrity.
The unregulated exercise of investigative discretion, often carried out without even minimal scientific training or accountability, corrupts the evidentiary pathway at its very inception. In such a framework, truth is neither fully captured nor judicially enforceable. The consequences of sidelining forensic science are nothing short of tragic, with true offenders escaping punishment and public confidence in the justice system steadily withering—thus reinforcing a cycle of impunity that erodes institutional legitimacy.
Time and again, the exclusion or marginalisation of forensic expertise from investigative processes has resulted in miscarriages of justice. Each such failure is not merely an individual tragedy but a collective indictment of the system itself. It underscores, with growing urgency, the necessity of embedding forensic science into the very architecture of truth-seeking. Without this integration, justice remains precarious, fragile, and vulnerable to conjecture, compromised by discretion rather than guided by facts.
In the absence of a forensic framework, the justice system is denied its most disciplined and incorruptible safeguard, leaving truth hostage to chance and convenience rather than science and certainty. Recognising this systemic gap, long-standing calls for reform have demanded that forensic science be elevated from the periphery to the very core of justice delivery.
In response, the Government of India, through the landmark criminal law reforms under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has mandated the compulsory use of forensic analysis in all cases where the prescribed punishment exceeds seven years. This statutory innovation marks a paradigmatic shift by extending the presence of forensic science from the crime scene to the courtroom, affirming that scientific evidence can no longer be treated as discretionary or auxiliary but as central to the determination of guilt or innocence.
If rigorously implemented, this reform has the potential to dismantle the culture of investigative arbitrariness, embed accountability at every evidentiary juncture, and align India’s practices with globally accepted standards of probative integrity. By placing science at the heart of adjudication, it promises not only to restore the credibility of justice delivery but to reaffirm the timeless principle that truth is never born of discretion but emerges only from disciplined adherence to validated protocols.
It may be noted that while courts unwaveringly insist upon proof meeting the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ threshold, they seldom interrogate the foundational fragility of the very evidence placed before them. Critical questions remain conspicuously unasked: Why was vital evidence not secured at the earliest stage? Did the Investigating Officer’s authority overshadow the neutral and scientific role of forensic experts in documenting and preserving material for adjudication? Was the chain of custody maintained with the scrupulous precision that law demands? Were exhibits sealed, logged, and transmitted without delay? What explains the recurring delays in forwarding samples to Forensic Science Laboratories (FSLs), thereby exposing them to risks of tampering, contamination, or degradation? Most crucially, did the discretionary choices of the Investigating Officer dilute or distort the evidentiary record in ways that irreparably compromised the pursuit of forensic truth?
When such questions remain unanswered, the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard risks collapsing into a hollow ritual—resting not on the strength of scientific inquiry but on the weakness of systemic omissions at critical stages of investigation. This fragility is further compounded by the entrenched misconception that criminal investigation is the exclusive prerogative of the police. In this model, forensic engagement—rather than being embedded as an independent and indispensable safeguard—is too often relegated to the margins, summoned at convenience, introduced as an afterthought, or strategically deployed to reinforce a predetermined narrative.
The result is a troubling paradox wherein the very discipline conceived to shield justice from error and bias is, under unchecked discretion, transformed into an instrument that entrenches both.
Encouragingly, recent judicial pronouncements have begun recalibrating the uneasy balance between investigative discretion and forensic integrity. In Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra (2024), the Supreme Court emphasised that ‘credibility of forensic evidence must be traced not only in laboratory precision but in the sanctity of its collection’, explicitly denouncing the selective submission of samples and reaffirming that evidentiary neutrality begins at the crime scene and not in the laboratory.
A parallel stance was adopted in Arif Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), where the Allahabad High Court mandated forensic audits in custodial death cases, dismantling the investigatory privilege that had long insulated lapses from scrutiny. Similarly, the Kerala High Court, in a 2023 case involving delayed rape kit submissions, recognised how the absence of timely forensic corroboration emboldened defence strategies and gravely weakened justice delivery.
The stakes of such lapses became stark in Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu (SC, 2025), where a death-row inmate was acquitted owing to fatal procedural deficiencies—including delayed sample transfers, broken custody chains, and the absence of independent witnesses—all of which nullified otherwise sound forensic analyses. Comparable failures were documented in a Gurgaon drug trafficking case, where accused persons were acquitted after five years of incarceration due to delayed FSL submissions, broken seals, and missing attestations. Notably, these collapses arose not from scientific incapacity but from unchecked investigatory discretion.
Together, these judicial interventions mark a decisive shift in the view that courts are no longer content with forensic science as a symbolic accessory to investigation. Instead, they are insisting on the principled integration of forensics from the very first stage—treating it as the bedrock of evidentiary credibility and the only safeguard against investigative arbitrariness. Yet, these rulings simultaneously expose a systemic fault line: Investigating Officers wield vast discretion, while forensic experts are expected to deliver absolute certainty, often with material that is delayed, incomplete, or already compromised. Where discretion dictates delay, omission, or suppression, forensic clarity is the first casualty.
Crucially, this is not a failure of science but of procedure. Forensic science does not falter from incapacity; it falters from misapplication, misdirection, mistrust, and mistiming. Recognising this, the Supreme Court has now directed subordinate courts to enforce strict adherence to safeguards such as signed collection registers, sealed packaging, independent witnesses, traceability logs, and mandatory transfers within 48 hours. These are not perfunctory bureaucratic rituals; they are the lifeblood of forensic reliability. Their neglect not only fractures the evidentiary chain but also steadily erodes public confidence in the justice system itself.
Thus, in light of these judicially illuminated facets, a structural recalibration of investigative powers is no longer an academic debate but an ethical and constitutional imperative. Forensic science must be repositioned—not as a discretionary appendage to policing but as a co-equal and constitutionally anchored partner in investigations, indispensable to fair trial, due process, and evidentiary integrity.
The judiciary has already begun sketching this vision, yet institutional inertia and entrenched hierarchies continue to stifle its realisation. What is required now is not rhetorical acknowledgment but systemic redesign—embedding forensic education, training, and research into the justice framework itself. This recalibration is not merely technical but moral. It restores fidelity to the principles of natural justice that animate the Constitution and demands that investigations rise above discretion, delay, and distortion.
Without such integration, the temptation to manufacture the appearance of resolution will persist. Punishing the true perpetrator is not simply a matter of deterrence or citizen protection; it is the cornerstone of the rule of law and the very legitimacy of justice itself. By contrast, the illusion of justice—secured through premature closure or the prosecution of the wrong individual—breeds complacency, corrodes public trust, and leaves the real perpetrator free to perpetuate harm.
In the absence of genuine forensic incorporation and under the shadow of unchecked investigatory discretion, justice risks devolving into performance—making the process a stage where procedure overshadows truth and appearance triumphs over substance.
Recommendations for embedding forensics as a co-equal partner in investigations
- Statutory mandate for forensic integration:
The Central Government should enact amendments to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, explicitly mandating the involvement of accredited forensic experts from the very inception of investigations in all serious offences such as homicide, sexual assault, terrorism, and organised crime. Crucially, forensic experts must not be relegated to a supportive or confirmatory role; rather, their reports should hold independent investigatory authority, with a statutory right of revision and review at any stage of proceedings. This would fundamentally redefine forensic science—not merely as a technical adjunct to policing but as a co-equal, constitutionally recognised pillar of investigation, with rights and responsibilities parallel to those of police investigators. By granting forensic findings evidentiary value equivalent to that of traditional investigation, the justice system would insulate itself from conjecture, arbitrariness, and manufactured narratives.
- Constitutional anchoring of forensic roles:
Forensic science should be constitutionally recognised as an indispensable safeguard within the justice system. Anchoring its role under Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) and Article 39A (Access to Justice) would affirm that forensic evidence is not a luxury or optional tool but an essential instrument of due process and fair trial. Further, there is a pressing need for jurisprudential clarity declaring that properly collected, processed, and presented forensic evidence constitutes a constitutional shield against wrongful conviction. Such recognition would elevate forensics from a discretionary aid to a guarantee of evidentiary integrity, ensuring that liberty is not curtailed on the basis of conjecture, coerced testimony, or investigative arbitrariness.
- Independent forensic oversight authority:
The Government should establish an autonomous National Commission on Forensic Science, structurally independent of police hierarchies and investigative discretion. This body must be vested with powers to regulate forensic practice, enforce evidence-handling protocols, and audit compliance with chain-of-custody safeguards. Crucially, forensic institutions should be mandated to report directly to judicial authorities rather than being administratively subsumed under police departments. Such realignment would not only insulate forensic experts from institutional pressure but also reaffirm their role as neutral custodians of truth. By ensuring independence in oversight, India can move toward a forensic framework that commands public confidence and judicial trust, free from investigative arbitrariness.
- Judicial enforcement of forensic safeguards:
Trial courts should be institutionally empowered and obligated to verify compliance with foundational forensic protocols—including signed collection registers, sealed and barcoded packaging, traceability logs, and mandatory 48-hour evidence transfer deadlines. To give these safeguards teeth, statutory directions must ensure that any lapse in compliance automatically triggers a judicial inquiry into investigative misconduct, with penalties for willful or repeated violations. This mechanism would shift forensic due process from a discretionary ideal to a justiciable right, ensuring that courts act as guardians of evidentiary integrity rather than passive recipients of potentially compromised material.
- Capacity building and education:
Forensic integration into justice cannot succeed without parallel investment in capacity and literacy across all stakeholder groups. To this end, forensic science modules must be embedded in judicial academies, police training colleges, and law universities—ensuring that judges, prosecutors, and investigators share a common baseline of forensic competence. Further, the Government should incentivise interdisciplinary forensic research centres within universities, fostering collaboration between forensic scientists, technologists, legal scholars, and social scientists. These centres would serve as hubs for applied knowledge, innovation, and continuous professional development, gradually building an ecosystem where forensic science is not merely supportive but a co-equal pillar of investigation and adjudication.
- Digital and AI-enabled evidence management:
A credible justice system requires evidence integrity beyond human discretion. To this end, the Government must develop a national digital chain-of-custody platform, secured through blockchain or equivalent tamper-proof technology, enabling real-time traceability of forensic evidence from collection to courtroom presentation. Further, AI-driven case tracking systems should be deployed to automatically alert courts and oversight authorities to lapses in evidence transfer, signs of tampering, or unexplained procedural delays. Such systems will act as proactive safeguards against investigative malpractice, reinforcing transparency and strengthening judicial confidence in forensic processes.
- Community and victim safeguards:
To restore public trust in the justice process, the system must empower victims and their legal representatives with the right to demand forensic examination at critical stages of investigation. This ensures that forensic science is not merely an institutional tool but also a community safeguard against investigative bias or neglect. Additionally, mechanisms should be established for periodic public reporting on key indicators such as forensic backlogs, error rates, and compliance with evidence-handling protocols. Such transparency will serve both as an accountability measure and as a confidence-building step, reinforcing the perception of forensic science as a public right tied to justice delivery.
- Forensic first response protocols:
Every crime scene should mandate the joint first response of forensic experts alongside the police, ensuring that the truth is secured in its unaltered state for scientific analysis. This approach will minimise the risks of contamination, delay, or subjective discretion in evidence handling. Police officers must be trained and designated as interim forensic custodians until formal handover, with clear documentation of all evidence interactions. This integrated deployment of police and forensic personnel at the very outset of investigations will significantly reduce tampering risks, strengthen admissibility, and guarantee that justice is anchored in scientifically secured truth.
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 and chairman of the RADISAT Foundation, he advocates for forensic science education, justice reforms, and scientific and research advancements in crime investigation and scientific reporting. His expertise spans DNA forensics, investigative forensics, forensic anthropology, forensic toxicology—including substance abuse and addiction—interventional forensics, and administrative forensics. Passionate about bridging the forensic science gap in Jammu and Kashmir, he works to integrate forensic science into academia, industry, the private sector, law enforcement, and governance.
sa********@***il.com