Introduction:

In a significant intervention aimed at strengthening the criminal justice infrastructure of the State, the Kerala High Court on February 17 took serious note of the acute shortage of scientific officers in the Forensic Science Laboratories (FSL) and its cascading impact on the pendency of criminal trials, particularly under the NDPS regime. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice C. Jayachandran was hearing W.P.(C) No.16773 of 2020 filed by the Kerala State Legal Services Authority against the State of Kerala and others, wherein systemic issues affecting expeditious disposal of criminal cases were flagged. Among the central concerns raised was the high pendency of narcotics cases due to delay in receipt of forensic reports, allegedly attributable to inadequate staffing in the State Forensic Science Laboratories. The Bench’s oral observations reflected judicial concern that the absence of timely FSL reports has enabled accused persons to secure bail and stalled commencement of trials for years together, thereby undermining both deterrence and due process.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:

The petitioner, the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KeLSA), approached the Court not as an adversarial litigant but as a constitutional sentinel highlighting structural deficiencies affecting access to justice. It brought to the Court’s attention the alarming pendency of NDPS cases—approximately 7202—across the State and the direct linkage between such backlog and delay in obtaining forensic examination reports. It was contended that without the FSL report confirming the nature of the seized substance, the police are unable to complete investigation and file charge sheets in a timely manner. Even where charge sheets are filed, Magistrates and Sessions Courts face difficulty in framing charges, as scientific confirmation is integral to prosecution under the NDPS Act. The petitioner pointed out that at the time of initiation of the proceedings, there were only 134 sanctioned posts of scientific officers in the FSL, with as many as 64 vacancies. This staffing deficit, it was argued, crippled the laboratory’s capacity to process samples within reasonable timelines. Although 41 additional posts were subsequently created, taking the total sanctioned strength to 175, and all such posts are presently filled, the State Police Chief had recommended creation of 31 further posts considering workload and case inflow. The Finance Department, however, approved only 12 posts and declined the remaining 19. The petitioner emphasised that in its earlier order dated 10.12.2025, the High Court had recorded the need for positive consideration of the Police Chief’s recommendation and had at least directed finalisation of the 12 approved posts. When the matter was taken up subsequently on January 27, the Court sought the Finance Department’s decision regarding the remaining 19 posts. According to KeLSA, the continued inaction on these posts perpetuated systemic delay and compromised the constitutional mandate of speedy trial under Article 21. The petitioner further supported establishment of Special NDPS Courts in all judicial districts to tackle pendency and stressed that infrastructure augmentation must be holistic, covering judicial officers, prosecutors, and forensic personnel alike.

Arguments on Behalf of the State:

The State Government, through its representatives, submitted that it had taken steps to address the manpower shortage. It informed the Court that 12 additional posts recommended by the Finance Department had already been created and that appointments were to be made through the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC). It was also pointed out that since the filing of the writ petition, 41 new posts had been sanctioned, raising the total strength to 175 scientific officers, and that all sanctioned posts were currently filled. The State contended that recruitment and creation of posts must be aligned with overall fiscal capacity and competing priorities across departments. According to the Government, it was not financially feasible to create 31 additional posts within a single department in one stretch. The Finance Department had examined the proposal and, in light of prevailing financial constraints, approved only 12 posts while deferring the remaining 19. The State argued that administrative discretion in matters of cadre strength and budgetary allocation falls within executive domain and must consider macro-economic factors. It further submitted that with the current sanctioned strength of 175 officers, significant improvement had been achieved compared to the initial scenario. The State also indicated that appointments through the KPSC would soon augment operational efficiency and reduce backlog.

Court’s Observations and Interim Directions:

The Division Bench, however, expressed dissatisfaction with the explanation offered by the State for deferring the 19 posts. In a pointed oral exchange, the Court remarked that large numbers of cases remain pending for years solely because FSL reports are not available. It observed that such delays have enured to the benefit of accused persons, enabling them to secure bail and stall trial proceedings. The Court underscored that whenever infrastructural issues affecting criminal trials arise, financial constraints are cited as justification, but from the judiciary’s standpoint, the primary concern is ensuring smooth and effective functioning of the criminal justice system. The Bench noted that the State Police Chief had specifically recommended creation of 31 posts based on assessment of operational requirements. While 12 posts had been approved, the remaining 19 were pending before the Finance Department and had effectively been declined. The Court questioned how such crucial posts could be deferred when absence of scientific officers directly impacts filing of charge sheets and framing of charges. In its interim order, the Court recorded that without timely filling of these posts, trials cannot commence and delay has resulted in accused persons benefiting through bail. It reiterated that the State bears a duty and responsibility to ensure that all requisite infrastructure is in place for proper functioning of the criminal justice system. The Court explicitly stated that it was not satisfied with the explanation for non-creation of the remaining 19 posts and expected a better affidavit and response from the Government. The Bench also directed the KPSC to file a report clarifying whether candidates had joined pursuant to the posts already created. Additionally, the Court explored whether services of the Central Forensic Science Laboratories could be utilised to clear backlog in pending criminal cases. For this purpose, notice was issued to the Deputy Solicitor General of India to ascertain feasibility and cooperation at the Central level. Broader Context: The proceedings also intersected with earlier judicial directions regarding establishment of Special NDPS Courts. Recognising pendency of approximately 7202 NDPS cases, the Court had earlier directed the State to constitute Special NDPS Courts in three more districts, in addition to proposed courts at Thiruvananthapuram and Ernakulam. The present order thus forms part of a larger judicial monitoring exercise aimed at strengthening systemic capacity—from courts to laboratories—to address narcotics-related prosecutions effectively. The Bench’s approach reflects an understanding that justice delivery is an interconnected chain: investigation, forensic analysis, charge sheet filing, cognizance, charge framing, and trial. A breakdown at any stage stalls the entire process.