• Holds that mentioning full forensic protocol in test reports is not mandatory, does not automatically invalidate lab report
• Ruling settles inconsistencies created by diverging opinions in previous SC verdicts

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday settled a long-running controversy over forensic analysis in narcotics cases, ruling that the requirement to mention “full protocols” in government analysts’ reports under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, was directory rather than mandatory.

By a majority of four to one, with Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan dissenting, a five-judge bench headed by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail held that the requirement under the unamended Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules, which required government analysts to submit test results together with full protocols of the test applied, was not mandatory.

The bench also included Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim.

The court declared that identifying and mentioning the names of internationally recognised tests listed in clauses (i) to (vii) of Explanation II to the amended Rule 6 amounted to “full and sufficient compliance” with the rule.

The bench had taken up a set of petitions involving a common question regarding the admissibility of forensic experts’ reports under Section 36 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules.

The larger bench was constituted to resolve inconsistent rulings of the Supreme Court. In 2015, in Ikram Ul­­lah and other cases, the court held that mentioning full protocols in the report was mandatory and that failure to do so vitiated its evidentiary value. However, in 2011, in Gul Alam and other cases, a contrary view had been taken.

Authored by Justice Mandokhail, the 14-page judgement explained that the court had formulated different questions during the hearing and answered them in the ruling.

The first question was whether the requirement to mention full protocols in reports under the unamended Rule 6 was mandatory or directory. The court held that it was directory.

It ruled that non-compliance with the protocols requirement under Rule 6, as originally enacted, does not invalidate the report or deprive it of evidentiary value under Section 36(2) of the Act. The unamended Rule 6 applies to all cases and FIRs registered before the amendment.

The second question concerned what would constitute sufficient compliance with the protocol requirements. The court held that identifying and mentioning the names of internationally recognised tests listed in the amended rule would amount to full and sufficient compliance.

The judgement clarified that it dealt with divergent views in earlier categories of cases and would have no retrospective effect. The court also said it would not examine the merits of the individual cases before it.

The judgement said there was a clear distinction between observing protocols during testing and analysis and mentioning those protocols in the final report as proof of the procedure followed by the analyst.

It said the purpose of the unamended Rule 6 was to place all necessary facts, information and procedural details before the court so it could reach a correct conclusion.

However, the court noted that under Section 36 of the 1997 Act and the proviso to Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a court may summon and examine the analyst along with the record if it considers such examination necessary in the interest of justice.

The judgement said this provided a sufficient statutory safeguard for the rights and interests of the accused, though it did not absolve government analysts of their responsibility to provide necessary details in reports to ensure the safe administration of justice and avoid unnecessary summoning of analysts.

The court held that the word “shall” used in the unamended Rule 6 was directory. It said the condition requiring full protocols in reports was a direction to government analysts to perform their public duty, not a substantive legal requirement.

In case of failure to mention protocols in the report, the fact that the government analyst observed full protocols during test and analysis can still be proved through other evidence or testimony of the analyst, the judgement said.

Besides, the unamended Rule 6 does not provide any consequences for non-mention of full protocols in the report.

Thus, omission to mention full protocols in the report is a mere procedural defect, which is curable and rectifiable; hence, it is an irregularity, not an illegality, the judgement emphasised. Such defect does not vitiate the evidentiary value of a report, nor can it defeat the purpose and object of the Act of 1997, it added.

Published in Dawn, May 14th, 2026