Inside the FSL Delhi DNA-Scam: What the High Court Found, How the CBI Responded, and What Must Change
Updated: September 2, 2025
Scope: A deeply reported explainer on the alleged tampering of DNA/forensic reports at Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Rohini, Delhi), the Delhi High Court’s 2018 order that triggered a CBI probe, and the 2019 FIR against two FSL officers. Packed with dates, case names, primary orders, and policy takeaways.
Snapshot (TL;DR)
- Aug 7, 2018 — Delhi High Court flags irregularities in DNA reports from FSL Rohini and directs the CBI to examine working practices; court notes possibility of compromised samples/manipulated reports and even the involvement of touts/outsiders.
Sources:
- Aug 1, 2019 — HC told CBI will register FIR over a fake DNA report that had led to an acquittal; the same case earlier spurred the 2018 order.
- Sept 27–28, 2019 — CBI FIR registered against two FSL Rohini officers for allegedly giving false/tampered opinions in three sexual-assault cases (2012–2013). Named: A.K. Shrivastava (then Deputy Director) and L. Babyto (Babito) Devi (then Senior Scientific Officer).
✓ Latest
🔥 Hot
Exposing the Parasites Exploiting India's Forensic Community
In-depth analysis of the self acclaimed Guardian ofForensic Science and their Opression to Forensic Community
UF
Unfiltered Forensic
Sept 2025
→
The Case That Blew the Whistle (State v. Khursheed)
What the High Court saw (Aug 7, 2018):
While hearing the State’s appeal against a trial-court acquittal of Khursheed (POCSO rape of an 8‑year‑old), the Delhi High Court recorded that an FSL DNA report on the victim’s underwear claimed “no match” with the accused’s blood sample. The bench (Justices Vipin Sanghi and P.S. Teji) found “something amiss,” especially because the mother’s testimony and medical evidence pointed to guilt. The court noted the FSL report wasn’t even exhibited at trial, and when original records reached the HC, the seal on the envelope of worksheets was broken — stunning for an agency that routinely handles sealed exhibits.
Order highlights: the court could not treat incorrect reports as bona fide mistakes; compromised samples or manipulated reports could not be ruled out; and “outsiders/touts” may be involved. The court therefore ordered a CBI preliminary inquiry into FSL’s working, especially DNA reports and all reports prepared by Ms. L. Babito Devi.
Read: LiveLaw explainer (with extracts) —
https://www.livelaw.in/delhi-hc-orders-cbi-probe-into-irregularities-in-dna-reports-submitted-by-forensic-science-laboratory-delhi-read-judgment
Primary text: Indian Kanoon (7 Aug 2018) —
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/5193484/
Outcome in Khursheed: On fresh sampling under court supervision, new DNA results matched the accused, reversing the acquittal. See: Times of India report (8 Aug 2018) — https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/delhi-hc-orders-cbi-probe-into-irregularities-at-govt-forensic-lab/articleshow/65315317.cms and Business Standard/PTI (7 Aug 2018) — https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/hc-holds-man-guilty-of-raping-minor-says-initial-dna-report-incorrect-118080701419_1.html
What the CBI FIR Says (Sept 27–28, 2019)
Regular Case (RC): RC0032019A0033, registered by CBI (ACB/Delhi) on September 27, 2019.
Accused (then posting):
- A.K. Shrivastava — then Deputy Director (Biology/DNA), FSL Rohini (later retired as Additional Director).
- Ms. L. Babyto (Babito) Devi — then Senior Scientific Officer (Biology/DNA), FSL Rohini.
Allegations: The duo prepared false/incorrect opinions and tampered with forensic exhibits in three Delhi Police cases (2012–2013), which initially led to favourable lower-court outcomes for the accused. On re-examination, experts from FSL Rohini (other scientists) and CFSL (CBI), New Delhi contradicted their opinions.
Key specifics from the FIR and press summaries:
- Badarpur rape case (2013): The initial FSL opinion said DNA on the accused’s undergarments did not match the victim; review found this incorrect.
- Mahindra Park (2012) — “unnatural sex and murder” case: DNA profile of the accused “differed” across reports — scientifically impossible.
- Samaypur Badli rape case (2012): DNA profiles developed by the officer differed from CFSL findings, rendering the earlier report “suspicious.”
Records-handling lapses: The FIR notes non‑preservation of exhibits and electropherograms — a basic breach of DNA-reporting practice.
Sources:
Tip for readers: If the CBI FIR link ever moves, use the CBI “View FIR” index and search for RC0032019A0033: https://cbi.gov.in/view-fir
Expanded Timeline (with dated sources)
What Exactly Went Wrong? (Forensics 101)
- Chain-of-custody breaches:
- Court‑received file showed broken seals on FSL worksheets (Khursheed).
- FIR notes non‑preservation of exhibits and electropherograms — a red flag in DNA casework.
- Contradictory DNA opinions:
- Different DNA profiles issued for the same accused (described as “scientifically not possible”) in one case; and a false “no match” in another that was later overturned on retesting.
- Structural risks:
- Identity bias: Sending FIR details alongside samples can prime analysts; DCW urged anonymisation (2017).
- Access control: HC suspected outsiders/touts may be influencing workflows.
Reforms & Safeguards (What the record suggests)
A. Steps flagged by CBI/HC (2018–2019):
- Tighten access control around casework rooms; audit seal integrity at every transfer.
- Retain raw DNA data (electropherograms, analyst notes), not just final reports.
- Peer review/second-opinion gates for sexual‑offence casework before release.
- Re‑test on suspicion: When case facts strongly contradict a lab opinion, courts can mandate fresh, supervised sampling.
B. Policy nudges from DCW & others:
- Anonymise samples (no accused/victim names/FIR numbers) to reduce bias.
- Improve capacity & turnaround to lower backlogs that create pressure points.
Sources: DCW recommendation (2017):
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/samples-should-be-sent-to-labs-without-fir-details-to-avoid-corruption-dcw-swati-maliwal-to-cops-4756096/
C. What FSL told court (2019):
- The FSL Director filed that the lab would implement CBI’s suggested safeguards; the HC directed institutionalisation and periodic status reports.
Source: Hindustan Times (Aug 1, 2019):
https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/fsl-officials-in-dock-for-fake-dna-report/story-WmNVrCUKvrKhbit6WPatgL.html
Primary Documents You Should Bookmark
- Delhi High Court Order (7 Aug 2018) — State (NCT of Delhi) v. Khursheed
- CBI FIR (27 Sept 2019) — RC0032019A0033
- Press Coverage (for cross‑verification):
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a conviction against the FSL officers yet?
Open‑source reporting captures the FIR registration and probe; any subsequent chargesheet/trial outcomes should be checked on CBI case status or court e‑filing portals. (If you need, I can add a live tracker section.)
Does this mean all FSL Delhi reports are unreliable?
No. The HC singled out specific irregularities and directed systemic checks. But the episode underscores why chain‑of‑custody discipline and blind/unbiased analysis are non‑negotiable.
Where can I learn the forensics basics?
For a scholarly context on regulating forensic labs and known failure modes, see:
SSRN (2024) — A Socio‑legal Critique of the Regulation of Forensic Science:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID4687612_code6413203.pdf?abstractid=4687612
Author’s Note
This guide sticks to primary orders and mainstream reportage. If you come across later orders/chargesheets in this matter, share the links and I’ll expand the tracker with case numbers, next dates, and filings.
