Forensics delayed is justice denied

In the complex machinery of the criminal justice system, forensic laboratories — or DNA labs — stand as essential pillars, providing scientifically accurate, impartial evidence that can make or break a case. From DNA testing to narcotics analysis, these facilities have proven to be indispensable in identifying perpetrators, exonerating the innocent, and ensuring fair trials across the world.

Yet in Bangladesh, the potential of forensic science remains largely untapped due to a scarcity of infrastructure, outdated technology and systemic inefficiencies.

Currently, Bangladesh has a limited number of operational forensic laboratories capable of conducting DNA testing. The primary facility is situated at Dhaka Medical College, which serves as the central hub for forensic investigations nationwide. Other institutions, both government-run and private, have begun to expand their capabilities, but the scale remains inadequate for a country of over 170 million people.

Despite its critical role, the forensic lab at Dhaka Medical College is beset by challenges such as outdated equipment, a shortage of skilled personnel, and a growing backlog of cases. These constraints have led to significant delays in forensic reporting, which in turn hinder the timely dispensation of justice. According to official records, as of late 2024, investigations into 789 cases were stalled due to delays in obtaining DNA test results.

Several courts in Bangladesh — including Sessions Courts, District Courts and the Anti-Narcotics Tribunal — regularly require forensic analysis to expedite proceedings, particularly in cases of murder, rape and drug trafficking. 

The Ministry of Home Affairs, in collaboration with the Directorate of Forensic Medicine, has established protocols prioritising urgent cases. Yet, with only one operational DNA lab under the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), timely analysis remains a persistent challenge.

The legal framework for forensic evidence is well established. The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898; the Evidence Act, 1872; and the DNA Act, 2014 collectively provide for the collection, admissibility and regulation of forensic evidence. 

Notably, Section 45 of the Evidence Act allows expert opinion, including DNA evidence, to be presented in court. However, the lack of infrastructure has hindered the practical application of these provisions, resulting in trial delays and, in some cases, miscarriages of justice.

The judiciary in Bangladesh has played a pivotal role in institutionalising the use of DNA evidence. In the landmark case Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) & Ors. vs. Bangladesh (Writ Petition No. 10663 of 2014), a Division Bench of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh issued 18 directives mandating that DNA samples in rape and sexual assault cases be collected within 48 hours of the incident. 

This decision came after a Garo woman's rape complaint was delayed due to jurisdictional complications, highlighting systemic failures.

In another notable case, Bangladesh Jatiyo Mahila Ainjibi Samity vs. Bangladesh (Writ Petition No. 5359 of 2006), the High Court Division used sibling DNA testing to uncover a case of attempted child trafficking, reinforcing the use of forensic science in protecting children's rights. 

Additionally, the courts have ruled that DNA test reports are admissible only if the expert who prepared the report testifies in court, ensuring the integrity of evidence and the rights of the accused.

However, there are some persistent gaps despite legislative progress. The Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Act, 2014, was a legislative milestone that established a legal basis for DNA profiling in criminal and civil cases. It includes provisions for a national DNA database and penalties for tampering with samples. 

However, critical flaws remain. The Act lacks explicit safeguards for informed consent, privacy protection, and independent oversight, raising concerns about misuse and wrongful convictions.

Section 12 of the Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Act, 2014 permits DNA collection from suspects and victims but does not mandate judicial authorisation or define consent protocols. Besides, Section 15 provides for a national DNA database but fails to set retention timelines for acquitted individuals, diverging from international standards.

A comparative analysis reveals how countries like the UK, US, India, and Bangladesh have progressed in DNA legislation and application. In the United Kingdom, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 underpin a comprehensive legal framework for DNA collection and retention, supported by the National DNA Database — one of the world's most extensive DNA database systems.

However, significant reforms were prompted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in S and Marper vs United Kingdom (2008), where the ECHR stated that the indefinite retention of DNA from individuals not convicted breached Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, protecting the right to privacy. This led to the UK enacting the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, curbing the retention period for DNA data without conviction.

In the United States, the DNA Identification Act of 1994 established the CODIS system, facilitating DNA data-sharing across states under a federal framework. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Maryland vs. King (2013) upheld the constitutionality of collecting DNA from arrestees for serious crimes, solidifying DNA's role in preliminary criminal investigations.

India, despite long operating without a comprehensive law, has recognised the evidentiary value of DNA through a key decision in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Rajesh Gautam (2003) 5 SCC 631, where the Supreme Court of India held that courts can mandate DNA tests to serve the cause of justice, especially in paternity disputes and serious crimes. This judicial endorsement preceded the passage of the DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2019 (yet to be enacted), which aims to regulate DNA testing and create a national databank.

Relevantly, in Pakistan, the Supreme Court in Salman Akram Raja vs. Government of Punjab (2013) mandated the preservation and timely analysis of DNA evidence in rape cases, and called for enhanced forensic capabilities and training. These developments reflect a shared judicial recognition of DNA's forensic value, though disparities in legal infrastructure, enforcement capacity, and technological integration highlight the uneven global evolution of DNA profiling in criminal justice systems.

However, the Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Act, 2014 lacks such nuanced provisions, highlighting the need for urgent reform to align with global best practices. Experts suggest the incorporation of informed consent mechanisms, strict data protection protocols, and independent regulatory bodies to ensure the ethical handling of DNA evidence.

Importantly, calls for reform and expansion have been raised from various stakeholders and social worker groups in relation to this matter. To address this imminent issue, in March 2025, the current interim government of Bangladesh approved amendments to the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act, 2000, promising to establish specialised Tribunals and additional DNA labs. These reforms are expected to accelerate case resolution and improve access to justice for vulnerable populations of the country.

However, experts argue that piecemeal efforts are insufficient. To meet international benchmarks, Bangladesh should aim to set up at least eight to 10 fully equipped forensic labs across key regions, each supported by trained forensic scientists and legal experts. According to international standards, high-density countries should maintain at least one forensic lab for every 10–20 million people—a target Bangladesh currently falls far short of.

A specific strategic approach is now needed to procure a more appropriate and accurate system. The persistent delay in the establishment of sufficient forensic infrastructure in Bangladesh stems from a combination of bureaucratic inertia, budgetary constraints, and institutional inefficiencies. Despite repeated pledges from successive governments, the development of DNA testing capabilities has lagged behind, leaving law enforcement agencies and the judiciary to rely on less reliable forms of evidence.

A strategic, data-driven approach to expanding forensic infrastructure, coupled with legal reforms and capacity building, can transform the landscape of criminal justice in Bangladesh. By investing in modern forensic laboratories or DNA labs, training forensic and legal professionals, and revising outmoded laws, we can expedite the resolution of criminal cases, ensure justice for victims, and restore public confidence in our judicial system.

Last but not least, the integration of forensic science, particularly DNA profiling, into our legal system is no longer a matter of choice — it is a necessity. Ensuring timely, accurate, and ethical use of forensic evidence will not only uphold the rights of victims and the accused but will also reinforce the very foundations of a transparent and accountable criminal justice system.

"Justice delayed is justice denied," the old adage goes. In Bangladesh, timely investment in forensic science may be the key to turning this maxim into an artefact of the past.

Sketch: TBS

Md Anwar Hossen is a Barrister-at-Law (of Lincoln's Inn) and an advocate at the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. Email: [email protected]

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.