The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench has sought a detailed response from the Director of the Uttar Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory over concerns about inadequate forensic infrastructure in the state. The court has given the official four weeks to submit a reply.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed that the availability of forensic laboratories in Uttar Pradesh was insufficient for a state of its geographical size and population.
The court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by advocate Piyush Gupta seeking measures to ensure timely forensic examinations and submission of scientific evidence in criminal cases.
Petition Seeks Fixed Deadlines for Forensic Reports
The PIL calls for a standard operating procedure (SOP) specifying the maximum time laboratories can take to examine samples and issue reports after receiving them.
It also seeks a system under which forensic examinations connected with cases involving accused persons in judicial custody receive priority.
The petitioner has requested time-bound procedures for matters falling under Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which requires investigations into specified sexual offences to be completed within two months.
Another proposal in the petition requires the laboratory director to provide written explanations whenever forensic examinations exceed the prescribed deadlines. It also seeks periodic monitoring of pending examinations by a designated officer.
Court Notes Limited Laboratory Infrastructure
During the proceedings, the Bench took note of the fact that Uttar Pradesh currently has one state Forensic Science Laboratory and 12 regional forensic laboratories.
The petitioner also placed before the court information concerning forensic laboratory facilities in different states, referring to figures provided by the Union Home Ministry in a reply to the Lok Sabha.
The petition contends that delays in receiving forensic findings can disrupt criminal proceedings, particularly where accused persons remain in judicial custody.
It further argues that delayed scientific examination can affect the prosecution of serious offences such as rape and murder, while extending the period victims and their families must wait for justice.
The High Court has directed the laboratory director to respond within four weeks and scheduled further consideration of the PIL for the week beginning November 30.
