Supreme Court settles controversy over drug test reports

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 menti