Where Indian Forensic Science Stands Now
Chapter Forty-Six
Syllabus topic 2, "Development of Forensic Science in India."
Pages 187 to 190 of 654
In one line
India has modernised the procedure of forensic science and has not built the institutions that would make the procedure work.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: the development of forensic science in India has produced a mature legal framework and an incomplete institutional one. The law now requires a forensic expert at the scene of a serious offence, requires the collection to be filmed, admits any recognised field of expertise, provides for specimens including voice samples, and has been supplemented by directions of the Supreme Court on the chain of custody; but there is still no forensic regulator, no statutory accreditation of laboratories, no statute governing DNA profiling, no right of an accused to independent testing, and no scheme for post-conviction testing, and the capacity of the State laboratories, which do most of the work, has not kept pace with the duties the law now places on them.
The story in one paragraph
The institutions arrived in a fixed order and each answered the limitation of the last. The Chemical Examiner could say what a substance was. Anthropometry could identify a man in custody but could not connect him to a place. The fingerprint bureau could do both, and the classification that made it possible was worked out in Bengal and the first bureau in the world was in Calcutta. The Serologist made blood evidence possible. The scientific sections inside the police brought physics, ballistics and documents into the range and brought the work under the investigating agency. The State laboratories made the range available across the country, unevenly. The Central laboratories, the Directorate and the records bureaux added referral capacity, coordination and a national record. The statutes, from 1872 to 2024, built the route by which all of it reaches a court.
What has been achieved
A complete legal route. Every kind of forensic material now has a provision by which it can be obtained, examined and received: sections 51, 52, 176(3), 184, 194, 329, 330, 336 and 349 of the Sanhita, sections 39, 40, 41, 63 and 72 of the Adhiniyam, and the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022.
A duty rather than a discretion. Since 2024 the law requires the science in serious cases instead of merely permitting it.
A record of what was done. Videography of collection and of search and seizure answers the oldest complaint about Indian investigation, which is that nobody can say afterwards what was and was not examined.
Judicial rules for handling. The 2025 directions give a documented collection, a forty eight hour despatch deadline, judicial control over reopening a stored package, and a Chain of Custody Register on the record.
A statutory university. The National Forensic Sciences University Act, 2020.
Where Indian Forensic Science Stands Now
One long standing accreditation of individuals. The All India Board Examination for fingerprint experts, every year since 1956.
What has not
No regulator. No body may accredit a laboratory, prescribe a method, audit an opinion or act on a complaint. The Directorate runs six laboratories and coordinates; it does not regulate, and it has no power over the State laboratories that do most of the work.
No statutory accreditation. Accreditation exists under a voluntary scheme and many laboratories hold it. Nothing in law requires it and nothing follows from its absence.
No DNA statute. The Bill drafted by the Law Commission in 2017 and introduced in 2018 and 2019 was withdrawn from the Lok Sabha in July 2023.
No independent testing for the defence. Where only one side can commission an examination the science is not neutral in effect.
No post-conviction testing. Preserved material could be re-examined as methods improve, and there is no statutory route.
No capacity to match the duties. Section 176(3) requires an expert at the scene of every offence punishable with seven years or more. The number of such offences reported each year is very large, and the number of forensic scientists is not.
And the qualification that shows the point. Section 176(3) operates in a State only from the date that State notifies, within five years, and a State without a facility must notify the use of another State's. Parliament wrote the duty and then wrote in the delay, because the capacity to perform it did not exist.
The two arguments an examiner is testing
That the shape of Indian forensic development is procedural rather than institutional. Every major reform since 2000 has been a change to procedure. The institutional changes in the same period are the Directorate in 2002, the University in 2020, and a records function for the National Crime Records Bureau in 2022. None of them created a regulator.
That the constitutional structure explains a good deal of it. Police and public order are State subjects, so the Union can legislate procedure and cannot provide the laboratories. That is why section 176(3) had to be written with a State notification in it, why the Supreme Court had to say in 2025 that State subjects cannot justify differing sensitivities to evidence, and why capacity is uneven.
A candidate who makes both arguments has written a good answer to any question about the development of forensic science in India, whatever its exact wording.
A worked example: the answer to the question as MU sets it
MU has set this topic seven ways across the ten printed papers, and the same material answers all of them.
"Trace the development of forensic science in India." Chronological: antecedents, Chemical Examiner, anthropometry, the fingerprint bureau of 1897, the Serologist, the scientific sections, the State and Central laboratories, the Directorate in 2002, the records bureaux, the Act of 2022, the Sanhitas in 2024, and the University in 2020. Close with what is missing.
Where Indian Forensic Science Stands Now
"Trace the history and development of forensic science globally and in India." Add the four global ideas first: Bertillon and measurement; Herschel, Faulds and Galton on fingerprints; Locard's exchange principle and the Lyon laboratory of 1910; and the growth of the specialist disciplines. Then show that the classification which made fingerprints usable was Indian work and that the first bureau was in Calcutta.
"Write a note on forensic science with emphasis on historical perspective and its development." The same material with more weight on why each institution was created.
What must be in all three. Dates that can be sourced, institutions rather than ideas alone, the statutes, and a closing paragraph on what has not been achieved. What must not be in any of them is a list of names with no explanation of what each contributed.
Distinctions
| Achieved | Not achieved | |
|---|---|---|
| Legal route for evidence | complete | none missing |
| Duty to use the science | section 176(3) | but only from a State's notification |
| Record of what was done | videography under sections 105 and 176(3) | no audit of what the laboratory then did |
| Handling rules | the 2025 directions | not in any statute |
| Institutions | Directorate 2002, University 2020, records function 2022 | no regulator, no accreditation, no DNA statute |
| Capacity | uneven across States | no national service, and none possible without the States |
What beginners get wrong
Ending the history with a celebration. The last paragraph of this topic should be the gap, not the achievement.
Ending it with a complaint. The legal framework is genuinely complete and saying so is accurate.
Leaving out the constitutional explanation. Much of the unevenness follows from the State List and should be attributed to it rather than to neglect.
Quick revision
- Achieved: a complete legal route; a duty rather than a discretion since 2024; videography of collection and of search and seizure; the 2025 chain of custody directions; a statutory university in 2020; and the fingerprint experts' accreditation examination since 1956.
- Not achieved: no regulator, no statutory accreditation, no DNA statute, no defence access to testing, no post-conviction testing, and capacity that does not match the duties.
- Two arguments: the development has been procedural rather than institutional, and much of the unevenness follows from police and public order being State subjects.
- The proof of both is in section 176(3) itself, which writes the duty and then writes in a five year delay dependent on each State's notification.
Where Indian Forensic Science Stands Now
Test yourself
1. Summarise the development of forensic science in India in one sequence. Chemical Examiner, anthropometry, the fingerprint bureau of 1897 at the Writers' Building in Calcutta, the Serologist, the police scientific sections from 1933, the State laboratories, the Central laboratories under the Bureau of Police Research and Development from 1978, the Directorate of Forensic Science Services from 31 December 2002, the records bureaux, the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022, and the three Sanhitas from 1 July 2024, with the National Forensic Sciences University Act of 2020 alongside.
2. What has India achieved and what has it not? It has a complete legal route by which forensic material is obtained, examined and received, a statutory duty to use the science in serious cases, compulsory recording of collection and of search and seizure, judicial directions on the chain of custody, and a statutory university. It has no forensic regulator, no statutory accreditation, no DNA statute, no independent testing for the defence, no post-conviction testing, and insufficient capacity.
3. Why does section 176(3) itself prove the argument? Because Parliament imposed the duty and in the same sub-section postponed it to a date each State notifies within five years, and required a State without a facility to use another State's. The delay is written into the duty because the capacity to perform it did not exist.
4. How does the constitutional structure explain the unevenness? Public order and police are State subjects, so the Union can legislate procedure but cannot provide the laboratories. Capacity is therefore a State matter and varies, which is why the Supreme Court said in 2025 that the position of police and public order in the State List cannot justify differing procedures and sensitivities to evidence.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.