The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed grave concern about deficiencies noticed in Forensic Science Laboratories (FSLs) across the country, which play a critical role in criminal investigations [Mohd. Arbaz and Others v. State of NCT of Delhi].

A three-judge Bench of Justices Surya Kant, Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that there are not enough FSLs in India.

Most States only set up FSLs after a court order, it pointed out. The Court also flagged the alarming scarcity of skilled technicians and experts at such labs, who are essential for delivering reliable forensic analyses.

"We see every State has formed laboratory mostly after judicial orders. UP has only two. See Punjab and Uttarakhand as well - lack of proper FSL laboratories and (man)power. Bigger States like UP only have two laboratories - how much work load is there? We have to see what is being done as to how States have complied," Justice Kant remarked.

The Court eventually said that it wished to examine the consequences that may follow if there is a delay in filing FSL reports in criminal cases, and sought the assistance on this aspect. Advocate Ashima Mandla was appointed as the nodal officer to collate the responses.

"Both the parties are requested to formulate questions explaining irreversible consequences (that may follow delays in filing FSL reports) as also mandatory nature of procedural compliances, so as to safeguard the interest of accused as well as prosecution," the Court ordered.

The Court observed that such delays, which may be attributable to a dearth of FSL professionals, would adversely impact both the accused as well as the prosecution, thereby affecting the pursuit of justice.

It also asked if there are specialized educational programs and training initiatives in place to develop a proficient forensic science workforce.

"Are there any technicians available for such laboratories? Are courses being taught about this even? It is ideal that there be universities for this. We are concerned whether they have professors on this to teach," Justice Kant said.

The matter is posted next on December 11 for further hearing.

The case before the Court involves a legal question of whether a chargesheet filed without a FSL report in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), could be termed as an 'incomplete report' under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The Court is also examining the following related aspects:

- Establishment of adequate FSL/Examiner Laboratories by the State governments along with appointment of requisite technical staff to operate such laboratories;

- Current status of such laboratories;

- Creation of a robust mechanism for submission of the FSL/ Examiner’s Reports within the stipulated period;

- Follow up action taken by the States in compliance with the decision in Union of India v. Mohan Lal and Another (2016), wherein directions were issued to set-up storage facilities for adequate storage of contrabands.

These issues arose in a batch of appeals arising from a November 2020 decision of the Delhi High Court which had refused to grant bail to three persons booked in a drug possession case.

Before the High Court, the accused submitted that the report (chargesheet) filed by the investigating agency under Section 173, CrPC did not contain a report of the chemical examiner who had tested the alleged contraband.

Therefore, the accused contended that the chargesheet was incomplete and that they were entitled for default bail (bail granted for a failure to submit the chargesheet within the prescribed time) under Section 167, CrPC.

A trial court had earlier refused to accept the contention that the report was incomplete in absence of the examiner's report while rejecting the default bail plea.

The High Court set aside the trial court finding on the limited aspect of whether a final report was incomplete without an examiner's report.

However, it upheld rejection of the default bail plea after finding that the final report (chargesheet) had been filed within time.

Aggrieved by rejection of their bail plea, the accused persons approached the apex court for relief.

In December 2021, the top court had granted interim bail to some of the accused considering the period of jail time already undergone.

On July 18, the Court had sought the response of the Central and State governments in the matter.

[Live Courtroom Exchange]