Back
Faulty Scanners And Under-Equipped Labs Turn Spices Into A 57-Day Nightmare
The has held the State for the prolonged of a businessman after airport scanners flagged packets of aamchur and garam masala as narcotics. Justice Deepak Khot awarded ₹10 lakh in compensation, underscoring the State's duty to maintain functional forensic infrastructure under .
From Routine Security Check To Judicial Custody
In , businessman Ajay Singh was preparing to board a Jet Airways flight from Bhopal to Delhi en route to Malaysia. During routine screening at Bhopal Airport, the Explosive Trace Detector (ETD) machine raised alarms on two packets of branded spice powders, suggesting traces of heroin and MDEA. The personnel detained him on the spot. Samples were seized, a panchnama drawn up, and an FIR under was registered.
The petitioner remained in judicial custody for 57 days. , returned the samples after ten days citing lack of testing facilities for MDEA. The matter was eventually referred to the in Hyderabad. Its report dated found no contraband. Closure was accepted by the on . By then, Ajay Singh had already lost nearly two months of liberty on what turned out to be a .
Competing Claims Before The Court
The petitioner argued that the ETD machine—manufactured in Canada and calibrated for Western conditions—produced unreliable results on common Indian spices. He highlighted that repeated tests on other spice brands also triggered false alarms, and that the Airport Authority and lacked , trained personnel, and adequate swabs. He sought inquiry, blacklisting of the supplier, departmental action against erring officers, and ₹10 crore in compensation.
The countered that the ETD machines were procured through transparent global tender following protocols. It stressed that results were always meant to be indicative, requiring . The State Government invoked along with the protective umbrella of , asserting that officers acted in on the basis of a positive ETD reading. Respondent No. 5, the equipment supplier, added a preliminary objection that the writ petition, filed through a , was not maintainable.
When Technology Meets Institutional Inertia
Justice Khot examined the chain of events and found that the arrest itself was not entirely without basis given the ETD alarm. However, the subsequent 57-day incarceration stemmed directly from the State's failure to equip its laboratories. The mobile FSL unit proved useless, the Regional Forensic Laboratory lacked both equipment and standard samples, and only after multiple reminders and transfers did deliver the exonerating report.
The court drew upon the settled jurisprudence of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416, reiterating that is an appropriate remedy for established violation of the . It also relied on Division Bench decisions in Hardeep Singh Anand , Pooran Singh , Santosh Kumar Dohare , and Chandresh Marskole that awarded compensation in cases of .
Key Observations
"Because of the lethargy and not having the standard laboratories in the State of M.P., the petitioner had to suffer incarceration for 57 days."
"The State is for the act of the respondent authority for keeping him in prison for 57 days and ultimately found to be on a faulty basis."
"The quantum of compensation will, of course, depend upon the peculiar facts of each case... The objective is to apply balm to the wounds and not to punish the transgressor."
Justice Khot rejected the technical objection regarding the , noting that the petition had been pending since and the father of the petitioner had a direct stake. He declined to order inquiry or blacklisting, observing that the ETD was contractually specified as having an indicative role with less than 2 % false alarm rate.
Relief Granted And Systemic Directions
The High Court directed the State Government to pay Ajay Singh ₹10 lakh within three months. The amount is to be routed through the District Collector. The Chief Secretary was further directed to inspect all Regional Forensic Science Laboratories within one month and ensure they are adequately equipped and staffed so that similar delays do not recur.
The judgment sends a clear message that while security agencies may rely on screening technology, the State cannot outsource its constitutional responsibility to protect personal liberty. Inadequate forensic infrastructure that keeps innocent citizens behind bars for weeks cannot be dismissed as mere administrative lapse—it is a remediable breach of fundamental rights.
The ruling also clarifies that ETD machines, by their very design, only generate suspicion. Confirmatory scientific analysis must follow promptly, or the citizen whose life is interrupted bears no fault.
