Sun Sep 14 17:07:57 UTC 2025: **Summary:**

The Supreme Court of India has issued new guidelines to ensure the integrity of DNA evidence in criminal cases. This decision arose from a case where significant delays and a lack of chain of custody documentation raised concerns about sample contamination. The court’s guidelines mandate proper documentation of sample collection, swift transportation to forensic labs, restrictions on sample tampering, and the maintenance of a Chain of Custody Register. The guidelines highlight the importance of both proper sample handling by investigators and rigorous quality control within forensic science laboratories to ensure the reliability and admissibility of DNA evidence in court.

**News Article:**

**Indian Supreme Court Issues Landmark Guidelines on DNA Evidence Handling in Criminal Cases**

*New Delhi, September 15, 2025* – In a significant move to safeguard the integrity of forensic evidence, the Supreme Court of India has mandated strict new guidelines for handling DNA samples in criminal investigations. The ruling, stemming from the case of *Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu*, addresses concerns about contamination and procedural lapses that have previously led to the rejection of DNA evidence in court.

The court observed the need for uniformity in procedure, and has directed the Director Generals of Police of all States to prepare sample forms of the Chain of Custody Register and all other necessary documentation as directed, and to ensure their dispatch to all districts with instructions.

The core of the guidelines focuses on four key areas:

1. **Meticulous Documentation:** Comprehensive records, including FIR details, involved statutes, and contact information for all parties, must accompany DNA sample collection.
2. **Swift Transportation:** Investigating officers are now responsible for ensuring samples reach forensic science laboratories (FSLs) within 48 hours of collection. Any delays must be documented, and preservation efforts prioritized.
3. **Restricted Access:** Samples cannot be opened, altered, or resealed without explicit court authorization while stored pending trial or appeal.
4. **Chain of Custody Register:** A detailed register tracking the sample from collection to the resolution of the case (conviction or acquittal) is now mandatory, with the investigating officer accountable for any discrepancies.

Legal experts say the court’s decision underscores the critical need for both proper sample handling by law enforcement and rigorous quality control procedures within forensic laboratories. Previous cases, cited in the ruling, have seen DNA evidence rejected due to contamination concerns arising from improper storage, delayed transport, and questionable chain of custody.

The ruling recognizes that DNA evidence, while powerful, is considered “opinion evidence” under the Evidence Act and must be proven scientifically and legally. The reliability of DNA evidence hinges on maintaining strict protocols from the moment a sample is collected to its analysis in the lab.

Read More