The employment of scientific experts in court has increased rapidly as science and technology have
progressed. Numerous innovations have contributed to the enormous growth in the use of scientific evidence.
Since crime has been perpetrated deftly using cutting-edge technology, the judicial system has, therefore,
always looked to science for support. This trend is only growing. As a result, the judiciary has had a difficult
time evaluating the many different components of the evidence that relate to either science or technology and
within a short period, the judicial system has become overrun with scientific expert witnesses. Furthermore,
every advance in science and technology has a direct bearing on how the judiciary arrives at its conclusions.
The appraisal of the high-tech evidence, and whether or not to rely solely on the scientific community or how
to draw conclusions about the veracity of the scientific expert's findings, is the actual issue that has been
challenging for the court. In addition, whether or not the judges' traditional duty of determining the truth
would be negatively impacted if the judge were entirely drawn from the scientific community is also a great
concern. Therefore, the paper will examine the reliability and admissibility of scientific evidence while
keeping in mind the specific criteria or standards the judiciary has propounded for assessing scientific expert
testimony, with a particular focus on the procedures adopted by the judiciaries in India and the United
States