Updated Chapter 2 Findings (Focused on BNSS, 2023 Forensic Provisions)

Findings (Specific to BNSS 2023):

• Mandatory Forensic Expert at Crime Scenes (S.176(3)):

Introduces expert-led crime scene processing for serious offences (≥7 years), but lacks
clarity on implementation timelines and scope across states.

• Overbroad Collection Powers (S.349):

Allows fingerprint and voice sampling from any person under Magistrate’s order
without requiring link to the crime — raising privacy and proportionality concerns.

• Limited Right to Cross-Examine Experts (S.330(1)):

Restricts summoning forensic experts unless their reports are contested — potentially
limits fair trial rights and adversarial testing.
• Reliability Issues in Fingerprint Analysis:
High false positive rates (up to 28.1%) and lack of evidence for uniqueness undermine
reliability; studies reveal susceptibility to confirmation and contextual bias.

• State-wise Disparity in Forensic Practice:

No unified statutory crime scene protocols; reliance on local policies (e.g.,
Karnataka’s Scene of Crime Officers) leads to inconsistent standards across India.

Conclusion (BNSS Forensic Provisions)

BNSS 2023 introduces important forensic reforms, especially mandating expert involvement
at crime scenes and expanding collection scope. However, vague implementation timelines,
privacy risks, lack of uniform protocols, and unchecked admissibility of potentially flawed
forensic methods (e.g., fingerprint bias) dilute its effectiveness. A balanced framework
ensuring expert accountability, standardization, and rights protection is urgently needed.

Findings on DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2019

Key Objectives of the Bill:

• Create a legal framework for the use of DNA profiling in identifying offenders,
victims, missing persons, and unidentified bodies.

• Establish national and regional DNA databanks.

• Set up a DNA Regulatory Board to oversee implementation and ensure quality control
of labs.
Gaps and Concerns Identified

1. Right to Privacy and Consent

• The Bill allows DNA collection through individual consent, but fundamental rights
under Part III of the Constitution are inalienable and cannot be waived.

• The Bill lacks explicit consent safeguards and fails to ensure transparency on how
DNA data is used, stored, and retained.

2. Absence of a Data Protection Framework

• Introduced before the landmark Puttaswamy judgment, it fails to align with the
constitutional privacy framework under Article 21.

• Without a robust Data Protection Law, the bill risks creating a "surveillance state"
as warned by MP Shashi Tharoor.

3. Overbroad Purposes for Data Use

• DNA can be collected for a wide range of civil, criminal, and administrative purposes
(e.g., traffic violations, reproductive technologies), raising serious proportionality
issues.

• These expansive categories lack safeguards and purpose limitation standards.

4. Lack of Accountability and Oversight

• The DNA Regulatory Board has wide powers but lacks strong mechanisms for
independent oversight, judicial review, and redress mechanisms.

• No procedures for deletion or withdrawal of DNA data once a person is acquitted

or discharged.

5. Ambiguity in Scope and Definitions

• Despite focusing on “collection of DNA”, the Bill’s title and structure don’t clearly
define this objective.

• Lack of clarity on whether it covers forensic use only, or extends to medical and civil
domains.

Conclusion (Chapter 2 – Academic Evaluation)

While the 2019 DNA Bill is a significant step toward integrating forensic DNA
technology into India’s criminal justice system, it is deeply flawed in its current form. It
fails to uphold constitutional rights, particularly privacy under Article 21. The lack of a
companion Data Protection Law, vague drafting, disproportionate state powers, and broad
scope of application risk undermining public trust and violating civil liberties.
Thus, for the Bill to become a constitutionally valid and ethically acceptable framework:
 • It must be revised in light of the Puttaswamy judgment.

• Include explicit safeguards on consent, data use, retention, and destruction.

• Ensure robust oversight, with a clear purpose limitation clause and stronger rights
for individuals to challenge misuse.

Many times we speak about fairness in trial but we often tend to skip fairness in
investigation. We can ensure justice only when there is fair investigation using proper
evidences and establishing chain of event, fairness in investigation is precursor to fair trial.

What is the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022?

• It replaces the old 1920 law to allow police to collect more types of personal data
from people who are:

o Arrested,
o Convicted,

o Or even just detained.

• What kind of data can they collect?

o Fingerprints, iris scan, retina scan

o DNA samples (blood, saliva, hair, etc.)

o Handwriting, signatures, even voice samples

Findings (Problems or Gaps)

1. Too Much Power

• Police can collect data from anyone, even if that person is not directly linked to a
crime.

• There is no rule that says this must be necessary or relevant.

2. No Privacy Protection

• There's no rule on how long the data will be stored or what happens if a person is
found innocent.

• This can violate a person’s right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
3. No Consent or Review
 • A person has no option to refuse, and there’s no way to challenge misuse of the data.

• There is no independent body or court review to check if police are using it

correctly.

4. Risk of Misuse

• Without strict rules, this law could be used for mass surveillance — tracking people
without proper reason.

• It may especially affect poor or undertrial individuals who can’t legally challenge it.

Simple Conclusion You Can Say Aloud

"While the Act tries to help investigations with modern tools like DNA and biometrics, it
gives the police too much power without clear checks and balances. It doesn’t explain how
data will be used, stored, or deleted — and this can affect the privacy and rights of
ordinary people, especially if they’re innocent or wrongly accused. So, I believe the law
needs stronger protections and better rules before it can be safely used."

Constitutional Provisions – Key Findings (Chapter 2)

• Article 21 – Right to Privacy:

DNA collection involves deeply personal data. Without proper safeguards, it can
violate a person’s right to privacy as upheld in the K.S. Puttaswamy case.

• Article 20(3) – Right Against Self-Incrimination:

Forcing someone to give DNA or bodily samples may conflict with this right,
especially if done without consent, as discussed in Selvi v. State of Karnataka.

• Article 14 – Right to Equality:

Broad and unchecked powers in DNA collection laws can lead to discrimination and
unequal treatment, especially against undertrial or vulnerable individuals.
Chapter 3: Judicial Attitude Towards Evidentiary Value of DNA in India – Presentation
Notes

Introduction

• DNA testing plays a key role in identifying offenders and exonerating the innocent.

• Accepted in Indian courts primarily under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (now Section 39, BSA, 2023) as expert opinion.

• Courts also rely on Article 20(3) (right against self-incrimination) and Article 21
(right to privacy and dignity) when balancing admissibility.

Understanding DNA Evidence

• DNA can be extracted from any human cell (blood, hair, semen, etc.).

• Used in cases of sexual assault, murder, child swapping, paternity, and

identification of mutilated bodies.

• Highly accurate, but depends on:

o Proper collection & sealing of samples,

o Chain of custody,

o Absence of contamination.

Judicial Outlook: Evidentiary Reliability

Courts have generally accepted DNA as reliable, but:

• Must be collected scientifically.

• Should include random match probability (RMP) to establish statistical value.

• Improper handling can make DNA evidence inadmissible.

Landmark Cases – Brief Facts for Presentation

1. Anokhi Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019)

o Facts: Conviction based on flawed DNA analysis; later acquitted.

o Significance: Highlighted need for quality control in labs and strict chain
of custody.
 2. Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh

o Facts: DNA report lacked “random match probability”.

o Significance: Court ruled DNA without RMP is statistically weak—can't

be the sole basis for conviction.

3. Rahul v. State of Delhi

o Facts: DNA matched, but poor sealing and collection practices led to
acquittal.

o Significance: Emphasized importance of sample integrity and

procedural compliance.

4. Ranjit Kumar Haldar v. State of Sikkim

o Facts: DNA was not contested; conviction upheld.

o Significance: Courts will accept DNA where processes are properly

followed.

5. Anil Kumar v. Turaka Kondala Rao (1998)

o Facts: DNA test proved paternity in maintenance dispute.

o Significance: DNA accepted in civil matters too (family law, paternity).

Typology of DNA Evidence in Indian Courts

Type of Case Application of DNA Evidence

Criminal (Murder/Rape) Proves/Excludes accused identity

Civil (Paternity) Confirms biological relationship

Mass Tragedies Identifies mutilated bodies (e.g., Rajiv Gandhi case)

Conclusion

• Indian judiciary acknowledges DNA as crucial scientific evidence.

• Yet, courts emphasize:

o Procedural accuracy,

o Scientific clarity (e.g., RMP),

o Protection of rights (privacy, consent).
• Need for:

o Standard forensic protocols,

o Lab accreditation,

o Statutory clarity (pending DNA Technology Bill, 2019).

Tips for Viva

• If asked:

o What is RMP? → It shows the chance of a DNA match occurring randomly

in the population.

o Why was DNA rejected in Rahul? → Because sample handling was poor,
not due to a mismatch.

o How do courts protect rights? → They rely on K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy)

and ensure DNA is not misused or compelled without safeguards.
Chapter 4: DNA Technology in the UK and USA – Presentation Notes

🇬🇧 DNA Technology in the United Kingdom

Legal Framework

• Governed under PACE, 1984 – sets out when and how DNA can be collected,
retained, and used.

Key Institutions

• National DNA Database (NDNAD) – Established in 1995.

• Forensic Science Regulator – Ensures labs meet national quality standards.

Key Cases

1. R v. Pitchfork (1988)

o Facts: First criminal conviction using DNA evidence; convicted of raping

and murdering two girls.

o Importance: Proved identity beyond doubt using DNA; set a global

precedent.

2. R v. Doheny and Adams (1997)

o Facts: Concerned interpretation of DNA probability results in rape/murder

cases.

o Importance: Court ruled DNA evidence must be presented with clear

statistical explanations—jury must understand probabilities (e.g., "1 in a
billion" chance).

3. S. and Marper v. United Kingdom (ECHR, 2008)

o Facts: DNA of two acquitted individuals was retained in police databases.

o Importance: European Court held this violated Article 8 (Right to

Privacy); UK changed laws to delete DNA of innocent persons.

🇺🇸 DNA Technology in the United States

Legal Framework

• Governed by Federal Rules of Evidence.

• Admissibility determined by:
 o Frye Test (1923) – “General acceptance”

o Daubert Standard (1993 onwards) – Scientific reliability is key.

Infrastructure

• CODIS (Combined DNA Index System) – National DNA database maintained by

the FBI; includes profiles from arrestees, convicts, missing persons.

Key Cases

1. Frye v. United States (1923)

o Facts: Concerned use of a lie detector.

o Importance: Introduced the “general acceptance” test in the scientific

community.

2. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993)

o Facts: Parents alleged birth defects from a drug; challenged expert

testimony.

o Importance: Court replaced Frye; introduced 5-factor test: peer review,

testability, error rate, standards, and general acceptance.

3. Jones v. Murray (1991)

o Facts: Challenged mandatory DNA sampling for parolees.

o Importance: Court upheld collection in state interest, prioritizing public

safety over privacy.

4. Kumho Tire v. Carmichael (1999)

o Facts: Tire blowout case; challenged engineering expert testimony.

o Importance: Extended Daubert standard to all expert testimony, not

just science.

Comparative Insights

Criteria United Kingdom United States

Based on judicial discretion Strict Daubert test (scientific method

Admissibility
(Doheny, PACE) focus)

NDNAD – strict post-acquittal CODIS – broader inclusion,

DNA Database
deletion including arrestees
Criteria United Kingdom United States

No central oversight; state-driven

Oversight Independent Forensic Regulator
systems

Privacy Weaker; collection upheld on

Stronger (after Marper)
Protection security grounds

Conclusion & Lessons for India

• Both countries ensure:

o Scientific rigor in admissibility,

o Independent lab practices,

o Defined DNA data governance.

• India can adopt:
o Daubert-style admissibility rules (scientific validity),

o Independent forensic agency,

o Privacy safeguards (as per Puttaswamy),

o Procedural clarity under the proposed DNA Technology Bill, 2019.

Tips for Presentation

If asked:

• Explain Daubert? → A test that checks if scientific evidence is reliable: testable,

peer-reviewed, with known error rate.
• How UK balances privacy? → Post-Marper, deletes DNA of acquitted; data
retention requires necessity.
• Biggest lesson for India? → Need for a legally binding, ethical, and scientifically
robust DNA framework.
Suggestions / Recommendations – For Panel Presentation

These are practical, implementable steps that India can take based on your findings:

1. Codify Admissibility Standards

• Enact clear statutory rules for how DNA should be collected, preserved, and
presented.

• Adopt elements of the Daubert Standard (used in the U.S.)—evidence must be

testable, peer-reviewed, and statistically valid.

2. Pass the DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2019

• This pending bill addresses consent, data protection, and regulatory bodies.

o Creation of DNA Regulatory Board

o Establishment of DNA databanks

o Penalties for misuse or unauthorized disclosure.

“This bill is India’s first attempt to regulate DNA profiling. It proposes setting up a
national DNA board, databanks, and safeguards like informed consent. However, it is
still pending in Parliament.”

3. Establish Independent, Accredited Labs

• Forensic labs like CFSLs must be autonomous, with uniform national protocols.

• Labs should be equipped with modern tools like Next-Generation Sequencing, and
follow strict chain of custody.

“Currently, most labs are run by the police, raising concerns of bias. Like the
UK model, India should set up independent forensic institutions that follow
uniform standards and can be held accountable for lapses.”

4. Capacity Building for Law and Science Interface

• Judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement must be trained to understand, scrutinize,

and present DNA evidence.

• Encourage interdisciplinary workshops between forensic scientists and legal

professionals to bridge communication gaps.
 “Courts, police, and lawyers often lack scientific training. So, we need capacity
building—judges must understand what DNA statistics mean; police must know
how to collect samples without contamination.”

5. Privacy Protection Framework

• Clearly define:

o How long DNA data can be retained.

o Who can access it.

o What happens if a person is acquitted.

• This is essential to prevent misuse, racial profiling, or mass surveillance risks.

“DNA contains sensitive genetic data. If misused, it could violate Article 21, as held in
K.S. Puttaswamy. So, we must limit who can access it, how long it’s retained, and what
happens post-acquittal—just like in the UK after S. and Marper.”

6. Public Awareness and Transparency

• Encourage public legal education on DNA rights.

• Transparency in DNA use builds trust and prevents wrongful convictions.

“Finally, the public needs to be aware of how their DNA is used. This helps build
trust in the system and ensures wrongful use is publicly challenged.”

How to Conclude Before the Panel:

“In conclusion, DNA evidence holds tremendous potential to strengthen our justice system.
However, without a proper legal framework and scientific standardization, this strength can
turn into a vulnerability. What India needs now is not just scientific advancement, but
constitutional sensitivity, institutional reform, and informed legal adaptation.”