The Madhya Pradesh High Court has awarded Rs 10 lakh compensation to a businessman who spent 57 days in jail after airport security systems allegedly mistook packets of aamchur and garam masala for narcotic substances.
The court described the incident as a serious failure of state machinery and forensic infrastructure, observing that the businessman’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution had been violated due to wrongful incarceration.
The case has now drawn nationwide attention because it raises important questions about airport screening technology, forensic testing delays and the risk of innocent travellers being wrongly detained under strict narcotics laws.
How Aamchur and Garam Masala Triggered Drug Suspicion at Bhopal Airport
The incident dates back to May 7, 2010, when businessman Ajay Singh was preparing to board a Jet Airways flight from Bhopal to Delhi before travelling onward to Malaysia.
During routine baggage screening at Bhopal airport, packets containing branded aamchur powder and garam masala reportedly triggered alerts on an Explosive Trace Detector (ETD) machine. Security personnel allegedly suspected the packets contained traces of heroin and MDEA, a psychotropic substance covered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
Following the alarm, Singh was detained immediately and booked under the NDPS Act before being sent to judicial custody.
The unusual case quickly turned into a major legal and forensic controversy after later investigations found no narcotic substances in the seized packets.
Forensic Delays Left Businessman in Jail for Nearly Two Months
According to the court order, the seized samples were first sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory in Bhopal. However, the laboratory reportedly informed authorities that it lacked the facilities needed to test the suspected substances.
The samples were then forwarded to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, which later confirmed that the packets did not contain any narcotic or banned substance.
Ajay Singh was finally released on July 2, 2010, after spending 57 days in jail. A special NDPS court later accepted the closure report in the matter.
The High Court strongly criticised the delay, stating that better forensic infrastructure could have prevented prolonged detention of an innocent person.
Court Questions State’s Forensic Preparedness
Justice Deepak Khot observed that the state’s forensic infrastructure was inadequate and directly contributed to the businessman’s prolonged imprisonment.
The court noted that the ETD machine used at the airport was only indicative in nature and not conclusive proof of contraband material. During the proceedings, it was also argued that several Indian spice products could trigger false positives because the imported detection systems were not calibrated for aromatic food items commonly used in India.
However, the High Court did not hold the airport authorities or the machine manufacturer directly responsible for the incident.
Instead, the court emphasised that proper forensic confirmation should have been conducted swiftly before keeping a person behind bars for such an extended period.
MP High Court Orders Inspection of Forensic Labs Across State
In a major direction, the High Court ordered the Madhya Pradesh government to inspect forensic science laboratories across the state within one month.
The court directed authorities to ensure that regional forensic labs are equipped with modern testing technology and adequately trained staff capable of scientifically examining prohibited substances.
The judgment stated that such improvements were necessary to ensure that “no other innocent can be kept in illegal confinement” because of weak forensic systems and testing delays.
The ruling is being viewed as an important reminder of how gaps in forensic infrastructure can directly affect personal liberty and criminal justice in India.
Businessman Free to Seek Further Damages
Ajay Singh had reportedly sought Rs 10 crore compensation along with a CBI investigation into the procurement and functioning of the ETD machines used at the airport.
While the High Court did not approve those demands, it granted him liberty to pursue separate civil proceedings if he wishes to seek additional damages in the future.
Inputs from agencies
