MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Punjab & Haryana High Court Mandates Urgent Overhaul of FSLs to Protect Right to Speedy Trial

08 November 2024 8:27 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Punjab and Haryana High Court in Vinit Yadav v. State of Haryana directed sweeping reforms to Forensic Science Laboratories (FSLs) in Punjab and Haryana. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul’s ruling arose from mounting concerns over delays in obtaining FSL reports, which have obstructed timely trial processes in multiple cases, particularly under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
The case highlighted the persistent delays in issuing FSL reports, essential for progressing criminal investigations and trials. The Court underscored that such delays infringe on the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, a core principle of criminal justice. In response to this ongoing issue, the High Court established committees comprising senior IAS and IPS officers to identify the causes and propose reforms.
The committees reported inadequate physical and operational capacity within FSLs. Punjab's main FSL facility in Mohali, for example, operates with limited space, hindering its ability to handle a growing caseload. By comparison, Punjab’s FSL has only 21,000 sq. ft., compared to Chandigarh's Central Forensic Science Laboratory with 75,000 sq. ft.
Space constraints in Haryana's facilities prevent even basic operations in some divisions, such as the DNA division, which has had to suspend certain analyses due to a lack of resources.
Both states are experiencing acute personnel shortages, with over 70% of positions vacant in Haryana’s FSL. Essential positions remain unfilled, leaving current staff overwhelmed and unable to meet case demands.
FSL staff shortages are compounded by outdated workload norms, resulting in substantial delays in processing forensic evidence.
Budget constraints and slow administrative processes prevent timely procurement of vital equipment. For instance, Punjab’s FSL has faced delays in obtaining DNA testing kits, directly impacting sensitive investigations, including those under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act.
In Punjab, allocated funds for critical resources have gone unutilized due to procedural delays, resulting in the lapse of financial provisions and loss of essential forensic capabilities.
Both states report extensive case backlogs. As of March 2024, Punjab’s FSL had hundreds of pending cases in divisions such as biology, serology, and ballistics, exacerbating delays in criminal trials and adversely affecting justice outcomes.
The Court noted that delays caused by the FSL’s operational inefficiencies violxate the right to a speedy trial, a fundamental constitutional guarantee. Justice Kaul emphasized that prolonged trials not only undermine defendants' rights but also add to the suffering of victims awaiting justice. The Court cited its constitutional obligation to intervene when state failures compromise citizens' rights.
Directives and Recommendations
The Court issued a series of directives to address these systemic challenges. Key recommendations include:
Establishing an Independent Directorate for FSLs: The Court called for a dedicated FSL directorate with full-time directors and a supporting administrative structure to streamline oversight and operational efficiency.
Implementing SOPs and Performance Benchmarks: Both states are to introduce standard operating procedures and division-specific performance targets aligned with national standards to ensure accountability.
Enhancing Budget Utilization: Streamlining financial processes to avoid lapses and empowering FSL directors with greater autonomy for procurement decisions to facilitate timely acquisition of critical resources.
Addressing Personnel Gaps: Accelerated hiring processes and, where necessary, temporary staffing solutions are to be employed to address vacancies. The Court also advised updating workload norms to reflect contemporary caseloads and demands.
Reducing Court Appearances for FSL Officers: Officers are to attend hearings via video conferencing where possible to reduce disruption of their primary duties.
Modernizing Sample Handling and Record Keeping: Implementing a centralized record system, digital tracking, and stringent security measures, such as 24/7 CCTV monitoring, were recommended to streamline forensic evidence management.
The High Court endorsed the committee’s findings and directed both state governments to prioritize the recommended reforms. Justice Kaul expressed hope that these changes would reinforce public confidence in the justice system by ensuring prompt and reliable forensic support.
The judgment signals a critical turning point in how forensic delays are addressed in Punjab and Haryana, aiming to uphold citizens’ rights and reinforce the judiciary’s commitment to delivering timely justice.
Date of Decision: October 29, 2024

 

Latest Legal News