The Daubert trilogy stipulate a general criteria for the scrutiny of scientific evidences and experts in many US Courts, and has also been referred to by other jurisdictions, including India. Yet, a similarly precedential judgement or explicit regulation is starkly missing from the Indian jurisprudence and related laws of evidence. Using some judicial decisions from various Indian courts, this paper analyses the discerning process by which Indian judges arrive at conclusions concerning the material elements of the case, specifically with regards to scientific evidence and opinion. With the help of certain judgments, the paper illustrates that in the absence of legal guidance, the approach adopted by judges to assess probative worth of scientific evidence is not scientifically correct. Although there are instances where Indian courts have credibly entertained science and scientific opinion in the courtrooms, assessment of the reliability of expert opinions is not uniform, and thus, found highly wanting in the present legal landscape. The paper makes a case for the judiciary to bear more responsibility than the adversarial parties in their gatekeeping function. While the main aim is to petition for developing guidelines to improve judicial approach to admissibility jurisprudence, this paper also highlights the challenges and limitations within which such reforms must be constituted.