The Indian legal system has reached a crucial stage in how it evaluates forensic and electronic evidence. This includes both traditional biological evidence, such as DNA and modern digital sources like emails, device logs, and cloud data. For any such material to be admissible, three core requirements are now paramount: a properly documented and unbroken chain of custody, statutory certification for electronic records as mandated under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and strict adherence to scientific and procedural standards in DNA and digital forensic analysis.
First, the concept of chain of custody is important. Whether handling blood, hair or digital data, the courts expect a documented trail of how evidence was collected, stored, transferred, analysed and presented. With forensic samples, any contamination or unlogged transfer can lead to exclusion. With electronic evidence, they are easily altered or erased as the requirement is more acute. Every person who handled the data, every device used, and every transfer or copy must be detailed. The court’s concern is authenticity and integrity, and not just its relevance.
Second, on electronic evidence, the law focuses on the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 65B of the Evidence Act. In the prominent case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar versus Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020), the Supreme Court of India held that electronic records without the required certificate under Section 65B would generally not be admitted. The certificate is not a mere formality, as it validates how the record was made, the device used, and that the record has not been altered. The digital age has increased the stakes, and courts are less tolerant of loose documentation.
Third, the role of DNA and forensic science has grown substantially. DNA evidence can secure both convictions and exonerations, but only if collection, storage and analysis follow strict protocols. Sample contamination, inadequate lab infrastructure or faulty chain of custody undermines admissibility. Emerging forensic labs (such as those through the National Forensic Science University) and improved capacities reflect India’s commitment, but the courts will still test whether the science was properly applied.
The interplay of these elements in 2025 matters especially due to advancing technologies: cloud computing, encrypted communications, artificial intelligence, blockchain-based evidence storage and “deepfakes” all complicate the evidentiary landscape. Forensic systems must adapt: for example, some states are exploring blockchain to maintain tamper-proof logs of digital evidence transfers. The courts must balance innovation with safeguarding the rights of the accused, including fairness, reliability and relevance, which remain controlling principles.
So what does this mean in practice? For investigators, lawyers and forensic labs: make sure the entire evidentiary journey is mapped and recorded. For electronic data, ensure original devices, metadata, logs, certificates and chain of custody notes are preserved. For DNA, use accredited labs, control contamination, and document every step. For courts, each piece of evidence must pass three core filters: relevance to the facts, authenticity (including chain of custody) and reliability of the method. When anything fails, admissibility may be lost.
In summary: India’s justice system now regards forensic and electronic evidence not as optional but as integral to modern adjudication. The rules are clear: secure chain of custody, comply with statutory certificates (especially for digital records), and meet strict forensic standards (especially for DNA). As technology advances, the law is being stretched, but its foundations remain: evidence must be relevant, true, and fairly obtained. Those who ignore detailed documentation or rely on shaky processes risk losing the strongest evidence they think they have.
More Editorials on www.mediaeyenews.com
Caption: National Forensic Sciences University. (photo: online.nfsu.ac.in). Representational photo. Source: IANS
