Forensic Science in Court: Assessing the Legal Response to Emerging Reliability Concerns in Pakistan

Abstract

For decades, forensic science evidence has been perceived by courts in Pakistan as a infallible and objective arbiter of truth, often carrying a disproportionate weight in criminal adjudication. However, a global paradigm shift, spurred by influential reports from the United States National Academy of Sciences and the United Kingdom’s House of Lords, has exposed significant reliability concerns within various forensic disciplines. These concerns pertain to issues of methodological rigour, subjective interpretation, contextual bias, and a lack of foundational validation. This article investigates the extent to which Pakistan’s legal framework and judicial practice have responded to these emerging international concerns. Employing a qualitative doctrinal research methodology, this article analyses key legal provisions, including the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and a selection of seminal judgments from superior courts. The findings indicate that while there is a nascent and growing judicial awareness of the potential fallibility of forensic evidence, the legal response remains largely underdeveloped. The adversarial system struggles with a critical lack of prosecutorial and judicial scientific literacy, an under-resourced and fragmented forensic infrastructure, and an enduring cultural deference to expert testimony. The article concludes that without systemic reforms including the adoption of explicit reliability standards for the admissibility of expert evidence, enhanced funding and standardization for forensic laboratories, and specialized training for legal professionals the Pakistani justice system risks continued reliance on potentially unreliable scientific evidence, thereby compromising the integrity of its outcomes.

Keywords: Forensic Science, Admissibility, Reliability, Expert Evidence, Qanun-E-Shahadat Order, Pakistan, Judicial Scrutiny, Daubert Standard, Frye Standard