DNA profiling is considered a scientifically reliable tool for identifying perpetrators and exonerating the innocent. However, its role in Indian rape cases is generally regarded as corroborative rather than conclusive. Judicial scepticism stems from the likelihood of procedural deviations in sample collection, preservation, and handling, along with a preference for traditional evidence such as eyewitness testimony. Inconsistent judicial interpretation, multiplicity of forensic protocols, judicial backlogs, inadequate infrastructure/workforce, and delay tactics compound the problem. Statutory provisions permit DNA sample collection without defining “DNA profile”, the use of force in obtaining bodily measurements, and the prolonged retention of DNA data. These factors raise concerns over genetic privacy, human dignity, and informational overreach. The probative value of DNA evidence remains contingent upon the adoption of uniform and binding forensic protocols with embedded legal sanction, effective regulatory oversight, strict adherence to prescribed standards, infrastructure/trained manpower augmentation, and judicial sensitisation to evolving DNA technologies.
Shibam Talukdar (2025) studied this question.