Forensic Evidence in Indian Courts: Reliability, Admissibility, and Need for Scientific Standards

Abstract

The integrity of criminal justice systems depends critically on reliable forensic evidence. India's forensic framework, governed by the colonial-era Indian Evidence Act of 1872, lacks scientific validity requirements, laboratory accreditation mandates, and expert certification standards. This study analyzes India's forensic evidence admissibility standards through doctrinal legal analysis, systematic case law review of 127 Supreme Court and High Court decisions, and comparative examination of international frameworks. Findings reveal systematic deficiencies: courts admit expert testimony based solely on credentials without methodological validation, forensic laboratories operate without mandatory quality controls, and procedural safeguards against cognitive bias are absent. Comparative analysis shows India lacks virtually every major safeguard present in mature forensic systems. Case studies including the Aarushi Talwar murder and Malegaon blast investigation demonstrate how these failures produce unreliable evidence and wrongful convictions. This paper proposes comprehensive reforms including legislative amendments incorporating Daubert-style validity criteria, mandatory laboratory accreditation under ISO 17025, professional certification requirements for forensic practitioners, establishment of an independent Forensic Science Commission, and procedural safeguards including blind testing protocols and enhanced discovery rights.