Two more forensic labs to come up in Tamil Nadu, State informs Madras HC

CHENNAI: The State government informed the Madras High Court that two more DNA forensic laboratories would be established in the state to strengthen the investigation of crimes against women and children, as the court reserved orders on a plea seeking measures for the speedy trial of sexual assault cases.

When the matter came up for hearing before the First Bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, Public Prosecutor John Sathyan submitted that three DNA forensic laboratories are currently functioning in Tamil Nadu, including one in Chennai, and that two more laboratories are proposed to be established to strengthen forensic capabilities.

He further submitted that the State government has been taking intensive measures to curb crimes against women and children and that adequate funds would be allocated to strengthen judicial infrastructure.
During the hearing, the bench observed that a High Court committee is already monitoring the progress of trials in cases involving crimes against women and children.

The bench further observed that the large pendency of cases before the Special Courts makes day-to-day trials impracticable and noted that advocates often sought adjournments. Recording the State government’s assurance that the proposed measures would be implemented, the court said it would pass a detailed order.

The case arose from a petition filed by a woman who travelled to Tiruvannamalai from Andhra Pradesh on September 29, 2025, alleging two police constables intercepted their vehicle and took her and her mother separately on patrol motorcycles on the pretext of inquiry. The cops allegedly took them to a secluded location. The mother had jumped off the bike, but the constables had allegedly raped the petitioner.

The petitioner submitted that although the charge sheet was filed on November 4, 2025, the trial has not yet commenced. She alleged a systemic failure in ensuring speedy trials for survivors of sexual assault and contended that the prolonged delay could lead to witness intimidation and violate her fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.