Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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