Supreme Court of Pakistan on Wednesday settled a long-running legal controversy regarding forensic analysis in narcotics cases, ruling that mentioning “full protocols” in government analysts’ reports under the Control of Narcotic Substances Rules, 2001, is directory rather than mandatory.
A five-member bench headed by Jamal Khan Mandokhail delivered the verdict by a majority of four to one, with Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan dissenting.
The bench also included Justices:
- Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar
- Salahuddin Panhwar
- Ishtiaq Ibrahim
The court ruled that under the unamended Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules, failure to mention full testing protocols in forensic reports does not invalidate the report or remove its evidentiary value in narcotics cases.
The judgment clarified that identifying internationally recognized tests listed in the amended rule would amount to “full and sufficient compliance” with legal requirements.
The larger bench was formed to resolve conflicting Supreme Court rulings issued in previous years.
In 2015, the court ruled in the Ikram Ullah case that mentioning full protocols was mandatory and failure to do so weakened the evidentiary value of forensic reports. However, an earlier 2011 ruling in the Gul Alam case had taken the opposite position.
Authored by Justice Mandokhail, the 14-page judgment stated that the requirement to mention protocols was intended as a procedural direction for government analysts rather than a substantive legal condition.
The court held that:
- Non-mention of protocols is a procedural defect
- Such defects are curable and rectifiable
- The omission amounts to an irregularity, not an illegality
- The evidentiary value of the forensic report remains intact
The judgment also noted that courts still retain the authority under the law to summon and examine government analysts if necessary in the interest of justice.
According to the ruling, this safeguard adequately protects the rights of accused persons while ensuring the effective administration of justice in narcotics cases.
