The Indian forensic community needs to ask itself a very uncomfortable question.
What exactly are we celebrating today?
Are we celebrating genuine scientific excellence?
Are we celebrating years of research, laboratory contribution, casework, innovation and academic achievement?
Or are we simply celebrating another certificate, trophy and social-media post carrying the word "National Award"?
Because if we do not start asking these questions now, we may soon reach a stage where anyone can create an organisation, create dozens of award categories, distribute trophies, use the word "National", invite a few known personalities, and suddenly create an illusion of prestige.
And unfortunately, it appears that a significant part of the forensic community is willing to participate.
That is the real problem.
A "National Award" Does Not Automatically Mean a Nationally Recognised Award
This is perhaps the most basic point that many people seem to deliberately ignore.
"National Award for Excellence"
"Rashtriya Award"
"National Recognition"
These titles do not automatically mean that an award is a Government of India award.
They do not automatically mean that the Government recognises the award.
They do not automatically mean that a Ministry is associated with it.
They do not automatically mean that the award has been notified, authorised or administered through an official Government system.
A private organisation can organise an award programme. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.
Private awards exist across every field.
But the problem begins when the language, branding and social-media presentation create an impression of national-level institutional recognition without a clear public explanation of what the award actually represents.
And the forensic community, of all communities, should understand why this matters.
We are supposed to be a scientific community.
We are supposed to demand evidence.
We are supposed to question claims.
We are supposed to examine the basis before reaching a conclusion.
What is the basis?
Who Evaluated the Winners?
This is the question that should have been asked before every congratulatory LinkedIn post.
Who was the jury?
What were their qualifications?
What were the evaluation parameters?
What was the scoring methodology?
How were nominations shortlisted?
How many nominations were received?
How many nominees were shortlisted?
What percentage was assigned to research?
What percentage was assigned to professional contribution?
What percentage was assigned to teaching?
What percentage was assigned to innovation?
Were publications independently verified?
Were professional claims independently verified?
Was there any external review?
Was there any independent jury?
Was there any conflict-of-interest policy?
Were there recusals?
Was there a documented selection methodology?
Can the forensic community independently examine the basis on
which a particular person was declared "the best" in a particular category?
If the answer is not publicly available, then what exactly are we celebrating?
Because recognition without a transparent basis is not scientific recognition.
It is simply recognition.
And the difference matters.
35+ Categories Does Not Automatically Mean 35+ Forms of Excellence
One of the most concerning trends in modern award culture is the uncontrolled multiplication of award categories.
Best This
Excellence in That
Emerging Professional
Young Achiever
Outstanding Contribution
Exceptional Educator
Innovation Leader
Scientific Excellence
Lifetime Recognition
Media Excellence
Academic Excellence
Research Excellence
Professional Excellence
What is the scientific or professional basis for each category?
Who decided that these categories were necessary?
What is the distinction between them?
What objective parameters separate "Excellence" from "Outstanding Contribution"?
How does the organisation ensure that categories are not simply created to increase the number of award recipients?
An award programme should not be judged by the number of trophies it distributes.
It should be judged by the difficulty of earning one.
If recognition becomes too easily available, recognition itself loses value.
The Most Disturbing Part: Why Are Premier Institutions and Professionals Celebrating It?
This is where the issue becomes far more serious.
An ordinary private organisation organising an award is one thing.
But when such awards are publicly celebrated by:
- Professors
- Assistant Professors
- Scientists
- Forensic Experts
- Government laboratory professionals
- Academic institutions
- Premier forensic institutions
then the award suddenly receives a level of legitimacy that may go far beyond its publicly explained governance structure.
When a student sees a Professor from a major university posting:
"Honoured to receive National Award..."
what does that student understand?
The student does not investigate the award methodology.
The student does not search for the jury.
The student does not examine the registration structure of the organiser.
The student does not investigate whether the award is Government-administered or privately organised.
The student simply assumes:
"This must be a major national recognition."
And that is how perception becomes reality.
Not because the award necessarily has that status.
But because influential people create that perception by celebrating it without explaining the actual nature and basis of the recognition.
MSME Registration Is Not a Certificate of Award Credibility
Another issue that needs to be clearly understood is the repeated confusion surrounding MSME registration.
Suppose an organisation is registered under the MSME framework. Fine.
That establishes a form of enterprise registration.
But registration is not the same thing as scientific credibility.
An organisation can be legally registered and still organise an award programme with a weak selection methodology.
- Scientific credibility
- Academic credibility
- Independent evaluation
- Jury transparency
- Award governance
- Institutional authority
A legally registered business can organise an award. That does not mean the award itself automatically becomes nationally prestigious.
We Are a Forensic Community. Where Is the Evidence?
This is perhaps the greatest irony.
EVIDENCE SHOULD COME FIRST.
Forensic professionals constantly demand:
- Evidence must be collected.
- Evidence must be preserved.
- Evidence must be validated.
- Evidence must be evaluated.
- Evidence must be interpreted scientifically.
- Evidence must withstand scrutiny.
But when it comes to professional recognition, suddenly:
No evidence required.
No transparent evaluation required. No published scoring system required. No publicly identifiable jury process required. No conflict-of-interest disclosure required. No independent audit required. No detailed selection criteria required.
Just a trophy.
A photograph.
A LinkedIn post.
And congratulations.
Is this really the scientific culture we want to promote?
The Problem Is Bigger Than One Award Programme
This article is not merely about one organisation or one award.
The bigger problem is the culture developing inside the Indian forensic community.
- Certificates are treated as achievements.
- Internships are sold as professional experience.
- Participation is marketed as excellence.
- Private recognition is sometimes presented with language that creates a perception of institutional prestige.
- Social-media popularity is confused with scientific contribution.
- People collect titles instead of building competence.
- Organisations create recognition ecosystems without sufficient independent scrutiny.
Collect certificates. Collect awards. Post them online. Build perception.
But where is the science?
Where is the research?
Where is the laboratory contribution?
Where is the casework excellence?
Where is the peer-reviewed impact?
Where is the measurable professional contribution?
The Forensic Community Is Already Struggling. Why Are We Making It Worse?
Let us be brutally honest.
The forensic science ecosystem in India already has serious problems.
- Students are struggling for jobs.
- Private institutions are producing thousands of graduates with questionable practical exposure.
- Unethical internships are being promoted.
- Misleading certificates are everywhere.
- Social-media influencers are teaching forensic science without adequate accountability.
- Institutions sometimes market unrealistic career expectations.
- Students are encouraged to collect courses rather than develop expertise.
- The value of genuine scientific contribution is often overshadowed by online visibility.
RECOGNITION INFLATION
Everyone wants to be:
- Award-winning
- Nationally recognised
- Internationally recognised
- Outstanding
- Distinguished
- Excellent
But if everyone is constantly receiving some form of "excellence" recognition, then eventually the word excellence itself becomes meaningless.
A Trophy Cannot Manufacture Professional Excellence
A person does not become an excellent forensic scientist because someone hands them a trophy.
A person becomes excellent because of:
- Scientific competence
- Years of rigorous work
- Quality research
- Laboratory expertise
- Case contribution
- Professional integrity
- Peer recognition
- Independent evaluation
Real recognition should follow excellence.
Excellence should not be manufactured through recognition.
This distinction is becoming increasingly blurred.
And that is dangerous.
The Shameful Part Is That We Are Participating
Perhaps the most uncomfortable truth is this:
Nobody is forcing forensic professionals to celebrate every recognition.
Nobody is forcing professors to add every award to their professional identity.
Nobody is forcing scientists to publicly amplify awards whose evaluation mechanisms are unclear.
We are choosing to participate.
We are choosing to normalise it.
We are choosing to give it credibility.
And when respected professionals participate, students follow.
Then students create organisations.
Then those organisations create more awards.
Then more people participate.
This is how professional standards decline.
Not suddenly.
Gradually.
Through participation.
Through silence.
Through applause.
What Message Are We Giving to Young Forensic Students?
Imagine a student who spends five years studying forensic science.
The student conducts genuine research.
The student works in a laboratory.
The student publishes quality work.
The student struggles for funding.
The student spends years developing scientific expertise.
And then the student watches social media.
How do I achieve that?
What will the community tell them?
Work hard?
Conduct meaningful research?
Develop scientific competence?
Serve in laboratories for years?
Or simply become part of the right recognition ecosystem?
Young forensic professionals learn professional ethics by observing senior professionals.
Recognition Without Transparency Is an Ethical Problem
Nobody is saying private awards should not exist.
Nobody is saying people should not recognise professional contributions.
But if an organisation wants its awards to be respected, then it should be prepared to answer basic questions.
1
The JuryWho selected the winners?
2
The CriteriaWhat exactly was evaluated?
3
The MethodologyHow were candidates scored?
4
Conflict-of-Interest PolicyHow were professional relationships managed?
5
Shortlisting ProcessHow were finalists selected?
6
Category RationaleWhy does each category exist?
7
Legal IdentityWhat legal entity is issuing the recognition?
8
Nature of RecognitionIs it private, institutional, Government-associated or independently administered?
These are not unreasonable demands.
These are minimum standards for credibility.
Especially in science.
Especially in forensic science.
NFSU and Other Institutions Should Think Carefully About the Message
When premier institutions publicly acknowledge private awards, they should understand the impact of their association.
An institutional acknowledgement can significantly increase public perception of legitimacy.
Students do not always understand the difference between:
- An award received by an NFSU faculty member
- An award officially administered by NFSU
- An award organised privately and later acknowledged by an NFSU department or faculty member
These distinctions matter.
Institutions should therefore ensure clarity.
Otherwise, the public can easily misunderstand the relationship.
And when the institution is as important as the National Forensic Sciences University, the responsibility becomes even greater.
Because NFSU is not just another private training organisation.
It represents the highest level of forensic education and research infrastructure in India.
Its association—direct or indirect—with any external recognition programme carries weight.
That weight should not be taken lightly.
Being Part of the Forensic Fraternity, This Is Embarrassing
Yes, this needs to be said.
It is embarrassing.
Not because someone received an award.
Not because a private organisation organised an event.
But because we, as forensic professionals, are supposed to represent scientific integrity.
And yet we often refuse to apply basic scientific scrutiny to things that benefit our own professional image.
We question evidence in court.
But do we question recognition?
We question methodology in research.
But do we question methodology in award selection?
We question chain of custody.
But do we question the chain of credibility?
If we celebrate everything simply because it gives us a photograph with a trophy, then we have no right to complain when society stops taking forensic science seriously.
The Indian Forensic Community Is Not Being Destroyed by One Organisation
Let us be clear.
No single organisation can destroy forensic science in India.
No single award programme can destroy the forensic community.
The danger is collective participation.
- Every time we promote questionable practices without scrutiny, we contribute.
- Every time we celebrate recognition without asking its basis, we contribute.
- Every time we confuse social-media visibility with professional excellence, we contribute.
- Every time we remain silent because a senior professor or famous professional is involved, we contribute.
- Every time we refuse to ask questions because we may upset someone, we contribute.
And eventually, everyone becomes responsible.
If This Continues, What Will Happen?
The future is not difficult to predict.
- More organisations will create awards.
- More categories will appear.
- More people will become "award-winning".
- More LinkedIn profiles will display national recognition.
- More students will believe that collecting recognition is equivalent to building competence.
And eventually, genuine awards will also lose their value because nobody will know which recognition actually represents rigorous evaluation.
When everything is called prestigious, nothing remains prestigious.
The Forensic Community Needs to Stop Applauding and Start Asking Questions
The solution is simple.
Before congratulating someone for an award, ask:
Who organised it?
What is the legal identity of the organiser?
Is it a private award or a Government award?
Who selected the winner?
What were the criteria?
Was there an independent jury?
Was there a conflict-of-interest policy?
Is the evaluation methodology publicly available?
Can the professional community independently understand why the winner was selected?
If these questions are considered offensive, then we already have a bigger problem.
Because science is built on questions.
Forensics is built on questions.
Professional credibility should also survive questions.
Final Thoughts: Maybe the Community Is Already Participating in Its Own Decline
The Indian forensic community often complains about:
- Lack of respect.
- Lack of employment.
- Lack of Government opportunities.
- Poor educational standards.
- Fake courses.
- Misleading internships.
- Unethical practices.
- Social-media misinformation.
But perhaps we should also look in the mirror.
Because some of the damage is not being done to us.
Some of it is being done by us.
By what we celebrate.
By what we ignore.
By what we refuse to question.
By the standards we are willing to compromise for a certificate, a photograph, a title or a trophy.
If we, being members of the forensic fraternity, cannot differentiate between transparent professional recognition and unverified recognition systems, then we should not be surprised when the public cannot differentiate between genuine forensic expertise and manufactured professional image.
Forensic science in India is already fighting a battle for credibility.
We do not need to add another layer of confusion.
We do not need more recognition.
We need better recognition.
We need transparent recognition.
We need independent recognition.
We need evidence-based recognition.
Because if this culture continues, the question will not be:
"Why is forensic science in India struggling?"
The question will be:
"Why did the forensic community itself allow its standards to collapse?"
Because everyone was busy celebrating.
