Supreme Court Guidelines on DNA Evidence Collection and Preservation in Criminal Cases

In 2025, the Supreme Court of India initiated a suo motu writ petition to establish comprehensive guidelines for the collection, storage, and preservation of DNA evidence in criminal investigations. The bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, examined gaps in existing forensic practices that had led to wrongful convictions and evidence tampering. The court consulted the National Forensic Sciences University, Law Commission, and amicus curiae to formulate standardized protocols covering consent, chain of custody, laboratory accreditation, and database management. The judgment mandated that biological samples be collected only by trained personnel, preserved under strict temperature controls, and subjected to judicial oversight. It also recognized the right to privacy, requiring informed consent except in grave offences, and directed the central government to enact a comprehensive DNA regulation law within eighteen months.

The Supreme Court issued binding guidelines requiring judicial warrants for DNA collection in non-consensual cases, accreditation of all forensic labs by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL), mandatory videography of sample collection, strict chain-of-custody documentation, and destruction of profiles in acquittals. It directed the Union government to introduce a DNA Regulatory Bill within 18 months.

The core disputes revolved around the absence of statutory safeguards for DNA sample collection, leading to privacy violations and contamination risks; the admissibility of DNA evidence obtained without proper consent; the lack of uniform standards for forensic laboratories; and the need to balance investigative efficiency with the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The ruling was hailed as a landmark reform, closing a critical gap in India's criminal justice system. It is expected to reduce wrongful convictions, prevent misuse of biological data, and enhance the reliability of forensic evidence. Privacy advocates praised the privacy safeguards, while law enforcement agencies acknowledged the need for capacity building. The decision also spurred parliamentary debate on comprehensive DNA legislation.