Recently, the MP High Court awarded compensation worth ₹10 Lakh to a businessman who was accused of carrying heroin at the airport, when in reality, the security falsely flagged garam masala and aamchur in his bag as heroin sixteen years ago. The court then acknowledged the injustice and awarded ₹10 lakh compensation, calling it a failure of the state's forensic infrastructure and a violation of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty.
The case dates back to 7 May 2010, when Ajay Singh, a businessman from Gwalior, was preparing to board a Jet Airways flight from Bhopal to Delhi before travelling onward to Malaysia. During routine security screening at Bhopal airport, packets of branded aamchur (dry mango powder) and garam masala in his luggage triggered an alarm on an Explosive Trace Detector (ETD) machine.
The ETD machine reportedly indicated the possible presence of heroin and MDEA (Methylenedioxy-N-ethylamphetamine), a psychotropic substance covered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. Based on this preliminary alert, security personnel detained Singh and a criminal case was registered against him under one of India's strictest drug-control laws.
It was thus revealed that the ETD machine was never intended to serve as conclusive evidence of criminal activity. Such devices are designed as preliminary screening tools that indicate the possible presence of suspicious compounds and require confirmation through detailed forensic examination.
The seized samples were initially sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL) in Bhopal. Shockingly, the laboratory returned the samples, saying that it did not have the required facilities to test the suspected substances. The samples were then sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) in Hyderabad, where scientists finally determined that the packets contained no narcotic or psychotropic substances. They were exactly what Singh had maintained from the beginning: ordinary kitchen spices.
By the time the report reached authorities and Singh was released on July 2, 2010, he had already spent 57 days in judicial custody. The special NDPS court later accepted a closure report, effectively confirming that no offence had been committed.
During the proceedings before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Singh argued that the ETD machine, manufactured abroad, was not calibrated to account for aromatic Indian spices. It was also brought to the court's attention that similar tests conducted on other brands of aamchur and garam masala produced comparable false-positive results. This raised questions about whether imported detection technology was sufficiently adapted for Indian conditions.
Justice Deepak Kumar Khot, while deciding Singh's petition, made it clear that the airport authorities or the machine manufacturer could not be solely blamed, as ETD machines inherently have a margin of error and are only meant to indicate potential threats. The court instead placed responsibility on the state's inadequate forensic capabilities.
The court observed that if Madhya Pradesh possessed properly equipped laboratories capable of promptly conducting scientific tests, Ajay Singh could have been released much earlier instead of spending nearly two months in jail. Calling the delay a consequence of "lethargy and lack of standard laboratories," the High Court held the state vicariously liable for the violation of Singh's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
As compensation, the court directed the Madhya Pradesh government to pay Singh ₹10 lakh within three months. Although Singh had sought ₹10 crore in compensation, a CBI investigation into the procurement of the ETD machines, and action against responsible officials, the court declined those requests while allowing him the liberty to pursue separate civil remedies for further damages.
India has long struggled with shortages in forensic facilities, personnel, and technological resources. Reports from the Department of Justice and various parliamentary committees have repeatedly highlighted delays in forensic analysis due to the increasing burden on laboratories. Such delays can prolong investigations, keep undertrials in custody for extended periods, and affect the timely delivery of justice.
The High Court therefore issued a wider directive to the Chief Secretary of Madhya Pradesh, ordering an inspection of regional forensic laboratories and ensuring they are equipped with modern technology and trained experts. The objective, the court stated, was to ensure that "no other innocent can be kept in illegal confinement" because the state cannot scientifically verify allegations. The judgment serves as a reminder that errors in technology may be inevitable, but a justice system's responsibility is to ensure that those errors do not destroy innocent lives.
Added References