Admissibility and Reliability of Forensic Evidence: A Comparative Analysis of Indian and Global Standards
- NLR Journal
- Jul 16
- 2 min read
By Vijay Kumar Shriwastwa, Doctoral Research Scholar, School of Legal Studies, Sangam University, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
Abstract
In the justice system, forensic evidence is particularly significant because it provides scientific and objective factual evidence to help contextualize existing evidence in existence. At the same time, the arena of admissibility and reliability of forensic evidence remains in contention, and the arena continues to dictate interpretation. India, through the Indian Evidence Act (Sections 45-51), does have a general framework for expert opinion evidence and, therefore, forensic evidence. The Indian courts, when considering the use of forensic evidence, have taken a pro-position at which caution, scrutiny, and judicial discretion have emerged as their key characteristics. There are standards in the world, for example, the Frye test, and the Daubert standard for experts, as well as the legal admissibility of evidence in Canada and Australia that dictate forensic evidence to the level of general acceptance in the scientific community, before admissibility, but also standardization and scientific rigor in methodology. India could learn a lot from jurisdictions that are relatively robust and the common law forensics produced by the above-mentioned paradigm. In regard to forensics, India does have some institutional failures surrounding contamination of forensic evidence, loss of evidence, no standardization of forensic protocols, and failure to inform judges and judicial officers about the test and accountability in the evidence.
In order to achieve due process and the sake of quality forensic evidence, reform is required in forensics, which must include national standards for forensics, as well as accreditation of forensic laboratories, training for judges and lawyers, and independent functional frameworks for forensic services. Education and awareness campaigns for the legal fraternity, as well as forensics, will promote awareness as to the "truth" of forensic science and counter misplaced trust. These landmark decisions in India and different turnovers have illustrated that forensic evidence can bolster a case, or demolish a case and ultimately justice, or bias disposition, or tragic disposition. It is timely that an evidence-based, cautious, and scientifically rigorous judicial disposition is made in the arena of forensic evidence, to ensure justice is done as Denise Wilms' cognizant demanded.
Comments