Investigative pressure, broken chains of custody, and lab reports that please rather than probe are turning forensics from a sentinel of truth into an instrument of injustice. The path to reform demands statutory independence and unwavering ethics. If evidence is the bedrock of justice, its contamination is a structural betrayal. We must choose: will forensic science remain a tool of convenience or be empowered as the non-negotiable cornerstone of truth?
By Dr Sami Ullah
In any society governed by the rule of law, allegations are adjudicated not on rhetoric or intuition, but on the strength of evidence. In this context, evidence forms the bedrock upon which justice is constructed. It is this evidentiary foundation in the form of material, biological, digital, or testimonial that determines the fate of allegations. Evidence, by definition, encompasses any fact or observation capable of proving or disproving a claim, and must therefore endure the most exacting judicial scrutiny once placed on record following the investigator’s and institution’s vigilant examination of it. Such scrutiny demands that every evidentiary assertion meet the highest thresholds of reliability, sufficient to establish or negate facts beyond any reasonable doubt. For this very reason, allegations and the evidence that undergirds them cannot rest on conjecture, selective imagination, or procedural shortcuts. They must be concrete, verifiable, and firmly anchored in reality and capable of objectively linking a suspect to the crime and withstanding the full weight of judicial evaluation. Forensic science, which forms the critical bridge between investigative processes and judicial determination, exists precisely to defend this rule-of-law imperative. Its mandate is to rigorously interrogate the evidentiary trail so as to authenticate provenance, expose contamination or fabrication, distinguish artefact from fact, and translate empirical observations into conclusions capable of surviving judicial examination. In doing so, forensics safeguards not just the integrity of investigations, but the legitimacy of justice itself.
Despite its centrality to modern criminal procedure across India, including in Jammu & Kashmir, a troubling paradox is apparently faced. The very discipline entrusted with safeguarding truth is being imperilled by compromised practices that have gone upstream. Truncated samples, questionable chains of custody, selective or incomplete submissions, and at times materials shaped by investigative convenience rather than objective inquiry are being forwarded for forensic examination. In some instances, reports have even been tendered with malafide intent. While forensics begins with common sense and fine judgment made in the best interests of justice based on the analysis and interpretation of evidence, such practices undermine the entire forensic professionalism. When such practices take root, inquiry ceases to be a search for truth and becomes an instrument of deception. When forensic analysis is enlisted to ratify preordained narratives instead of rigorously testing them, both institutional integrity and the fairness of outcomes are jeopardised. This is not merely a technical deficiency but can be regarded as an institutional vulnerability that erodes public trust, distorts adjudication, and permits injustice to wear the appearance of lawful procedure. Forensic science must therefore be reasserted not as a passive extension of investigation but as an independent guarantor of evidentiary truth. It must be rigorous, sceptical, and institutionally empowered to be capable of holding both evidence and investigators to scientific and ethical accountability. Only then can it be seen fulfilling its foundational purpose of ensuring justice, not an act or an instrument of discretion, but an outcome grounded in demonstrable and verifiable truth.
By and large, forensic science is too often invoked not as an independent truth-seeking instrument but as a mechanism to validate pre-constructed investigative narratives. Decisions regarding what evidence is collected, what is withheld, and in what condition it is forwarded to the laboratory remain largely contingent upon the discretion and, at times, on the biases of the investigators. At its core, forensic science is designed to be impartial, empirically anchored, and insulated from coercion or influence. Its professional mandate is not to echo what investigators believe or wish to establish but is rather to reconstruct what may have actually occurred, identify who may be responsible, and do so irrespective of whose version such findings corroborate or contradict. When investigations selectively forward truncated, degraded, irrelevant, or strategically curated specimens to the laboratory, scientific inquiry is compromised at inception. When laboratory experts are implicitly expected to align their conclusions with investigative assumptions rather than established scientific protocols, the resulting ‘evidence analysis’ becomes an artefact of bias rather than a product of scientific method. When compromised forensic reports are placed before courts with expectations that the judges would often accept them unquestioningly in the name of the ‘rule of law’, then we, as professionals, citizens, must pause and introspect: Are we not exposing the justice system to grave risks by allowing procedure to replace truth, and authority to overshadow accuracy?
Fortunately, the judiciary across jurisdictions has repeatedly taken note of investigative distortions. On a number of occasions, courts have reprimanded investigative officers, casting grave suspicion on the bona fides of the investigative process, particularly where evidence appears deliberately shaped to mislead or suppress the truth. In several instances, officers have been found to intentionally shield real perpetrators while making scapegoats of innocents by placing their liberty, dignity, and lives at stake to satisfy institutional pressures or vested interests rather than the imperatives of justice. Should we call this a mere procedural flaw or a structural distortion aimed at threatening the credibility of the justice system? It should be noted that a forensic report crafted to please an investigation is not science but will be a professional breach disguised in scientific vocabulary. Once such reports enter the judicial record, justice becomes acutely vulnerable to error, manipulation, and irreversible harm. These are not abstract concerns or hypothetical dangers but completely unprofessionalism and unbecoming of professionals. Time and again, we have seen true perpetrators remain untouched while innocent individuals are drawn into criminal proceedings, only for the courts, often years later, to unravel the truth through painstaking scrutiny. Each such miscarriage of justice is not an unfortunate accident but a predictable outcome of a broken evidentiary chain, exercised by murky means to largely bypass the foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence.
It must be emphasised that the fault does not lie in forensic science as a discipline. Globally, its methods, principles, and scientific rigour remain robust and indispensable to both investigation and adjudication. The real weakness lies in the ecosystem that surrounds forensic work. Investigative agencies are frequently overburdened, occasionally compromised, and sometimes guided by imperatives that diverge sharply from the pursuit of truth. In such an environment, the collection, preservation, and forwarding of evidence become vulnerable to shortcuts, bias, and deliberate manipulation. Forensic laboratories, by contrast, can only analyse what they receive. Even the most advanced instruments and the most competent experts cannot compensate for tainted, incomplete, or selectively curated evidence. The scientific process is only as strong as the integrity of the material placed before it. When the chain of custody is compromised at the outset, the final forensic report, however meticulous its internal methodology may be, cannot deliver justice appropriately. Instead, it inadvertently enables cycles of crime without convictions, shielding the guilty while imperilling the innocent. Again, this raises uncomfortable but urgently necessary questions: Who is accountable when justice is quietly sabotaged long before a case even reaches the courtroom? Who bears responsibility when investigative discretion becomes a shield for negligence, bias, or deliberate abuse? And who answers for the lives upended, the reputations destroyed, and the public trust corroded when forensic truth is compromised at its very source? If evidence is the foundation on which justice is erected, then tampering with that foundation is not a procedural lapse but a structural betrayal. Accountability, therefore, cannot begin and end at the courtroom door. It must extend across the entire evidentiary chain: right from the informer, first responder who secures the scene, to the investigating officer who decides what to collect or conceal, to the forensic expert who analyses and signs the report, and finally to the judiciary if it fails in its obligation to interrogate the integrity of the evidence placed before it. Unless every actor in this chain is transparent and answerable, miscarriages of justice will continue, not as rare aberrations but as predictable outcomes of a damaged system.
Given these challenging times, there is no greater imperative than a transformation anchored in professional ethics, institutional courage, and uncompromising scientific integrity. Forensic science must reclaim its role not as a passive adjunct to investigative convenience but as an independent pillar of truth, empowered to question lapses, reject compromised material, and insist on scientific completeness. Such a shift requires far more than procedural upgrades. It calls for a cultural reorientation by offering commitments to the collection, preservation, analysis, and presentation of evidence with integrity that shall in all circumstances be immune to external pressures. Only when forensic professionals assert their ethical mandate and institutions create environments that protect scientific autonomy can the justice system be insulated from manipulation and restored to its rightful sanctity. Accordingly, evidence collection must strictly adhere to an unbroken chain-of-custody, documented with full transparency and insulated from any form of manipulation or discretionary tampering. Forensic laboratories must be institutionally empowered not merely to analyse what is sent, but to demand appropriate samples, flag dubious submissions, and outright reject compromised or scientifically unusable evidence. This would equally allow the forensic professionals to reclaim and recognise their higher duty in upholding the sanctity of scientific investigation made in pursuit of truth and not to any agency, rank, or investigative hierarchy, but to truth itself. Their professional obligation will likewise require them to question lapses, document irregularities, and, when necessary, report attempts to influence, dilute, or distort forensic outcomes. Without such empowered autonomy, forensic science risks becoming a silent accomplice to injustice rather than the sentinel it is meant to be. So the questions before people are simple, but carry profound consequences: Will we permit compromised evidence to determine the fate of citizens? Or will we assert forensic truth as the non-negotiable cornerstone of justice? Our answers to these questions will shape far more than individual cases. It will determine the credibility of investigations, the fairness of adjudication, and ultimately, the integrity of our democracy itself. In light of the above, it is evident that the time has come for the elected government to stop treating forensic science as a post-mortem witness to investigative discretion or to the failures that stem from it. Instead, ensure the evolution of forensics from being a downstream, reactive mechanism into a preventive safeguard powered to work as a scientific watchdog that shields the justice system from its own internal decay. In the backdrop of these systemic failures, ethical ruptures, and governmental expectations, the following recommendations, grounded in constitutional morality, scientific rigour, and contemporary global best practices, are proposed to ensure that the forensic profession reclaims its rightful role as a true saviour of justice:
- Legally enforceable chain-of-custody protocols
Evidence collection must follow codified, tamper-proof, timestamped, geo-tagged and digitally logged chain-of-custody standards that are mandatory, auditable, and immune to investigative manipulation across all investigative agencies. No forensic laboratory should accept samples lacking complete, verifiable documentation.
- Statutory independence of forensic laboratories
Forensic institutions must be granted operational and administrative independence from police and investigative agencies. This ensures that scientific opinion is not subordinated to investigative convenience or institutional pressures. By doing this forensic expert under a legally protected authority would be empowered to refuse analysis of improperly collected or suspicious samples, return incomplete case materials, and record deviations in the submission process as formal objections.
- Independent forensic authority
Establish an autonomous, statutory forensic oversight body with the power to demand proper samples, reject compromised submissions, flag investigative lapses, and submit independent reports directly to courts.
- Mandatory forensic audits of investigations
All serious crimes, especially those involving suspicious evidence patterns, must undergo periodic forensic audits to detect contamination, bias, or procedural irregularities before cases reach trial. Such a mechanism will build an investigation-forensics liaison force that will help institutionalise the channel where forensic experts can request missing information, clarify investigative questions, and correct improper requisitions without fear of reprisal.
- Mandatory integrity audits of evidence submission
All evidence forwarded for forensic examination must undergo pre-laboratory integrity screening to detect truncation, substitution, contamination, or manipulation. Any tampering must trigger immediate disciplinary and criminal proceedings. In this regard, forensics should be empowered to report mandatory documentation of investigative compliance failure, to which forensic scientists should be made competent to transparently document investigative lapses, irregularities, or attempts to influence forensic outcomes. All these notes should accompany the final report for judicial appraisal.
- Accountability framework for investigators
Investigating officers must be held individually accountable, both administratively and legally, for forwarding truncated, manipulated, or substandard evidence. Penalties should include suspension, prosecution, and debarring from investigative duties.
- Protection for forensic whistle-blowers
Forensic professionals must be granted statutory protection to report coercion, pressure, or attempts to alter scientific findings without fear of reprisal from investigative or political hierarchies. Such a safeguard of protection will act as a legal shield in truth adjudication cases, ensuring the complete triumph of truth over institutional pressures.
- Direct judicial interface
Forensic experts should be empowered to submit clarifications, dissenting notes, or anomaly reports directly to trial courts, ensuring that judicial scrutiny is informed by unfiltered scientific truth.
- Accreditation of all forensic laboratories
All government and private laboratories must be accredited under NABL/ISO standards with routine external audits, blind proficiency tests, and mandatory disclosure of error rates to ensure scientific validity, impartiality, and methodological transparency.
- Establishment of an independent forensic oversight commission
A multidisciplinary oversight body, comprising jurists, forensic experts, ethicists, and public representatives be made and who should be given the authority to monitor evidence handling, laboratory performance, and ethical compliance. This commission should subsequently publish annual reports for public scrutiny.
- Digital evidence tracking systems
Introduce real-time digital tracking right from seizure to analysis to prevent tampering, substitutions, and undocumented transfers that weaken evidentiary reliability.
- Ethics and integrity training for all stakeholders
Investigators, prosecutors, and forensic personnel must undergo mandatory training on evidentiary ethics, constitutional obligations, and international standards for scientific neutrality. Accordingly, there must be continuing professional ethics training for investigators, forensic personnel and judicial members, whereunder programs on forensic ethics, evidence integrity, and scientific impartiality are conducted periodically. This will help in aligning the investigation-forensic interface with the new criminal law provisions and global forensic standards.
- Forensic independence in case narratives
Laboratories must be prohibited from receiving investigative theories or narrative summaries before analysis to avoid confirmation bias and ensure objective interpretation.
- Judicial sensitisation on forensic limitations and misuse risks
Regular training for judges on scientific principles, forensic methodologies, and limitations of evidence to prevent blind reliance on reports that may be compromised at source. Such a court sensitisation must be regularly made, ensuring timely training on forensic strengths and limits, common pitfalls in manipulated submissions, and scientific indicators of compromised evidence. Informed judges are crucial to preventing the blind acceptance of forensic reports.
- Citizen transparency mechanisms
Annual public reports on forensic integrity, backlog status, sample rejection rates, and misconduct findings to build public trust and deter institutional malpractice, thereby amplifying the transparency mandate to be the strongest antidote to impunity.
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 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 & Kashmir, he works to integrate forensic science into academia, industry, private sector, law enforcement and governance.
sa********@***il.com