In a landmark ruling championing personal liberty, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered the state government to pay ₹10 lakh in compensation to a businessman who spent 57 days in jail after airport security equipment falsely flagged kitchen spices as hard drugs.
The ruling, delivered by Justice Deepak Khot, concluded that while the initial arrest at Bhopal airport was based on “reasonable apprehension,” the businessman’s prolonged detention was a direct result of systemic failures and inadequate testing infrastructure within state laboratories.
The Terminal Mix-Up: From Kitchen Spices to ‘Contraband’
The bizarre ordeal began at Bhopal airport, where the businessman was boarding a flight to Delhi, intending to travel onwards to Malaysia.
During routine pre-departure screening, airport security ran his luggage through an Explosive Trace Detector (ETD) machine. The device flagged his packets of aamchur (dry mango powder) and garam masala as containing heroin and Mytheylene Dioxym N-Ethylamphetamine (MDEA).
The positive reading led to his immediate arrest under the stringent Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
During the subsequent High Court proceedings, the petitioner argued that the ETD machine—which was manufactured in Canada—was faulty and had never been properly calibrated to account for highly aromatic Indian spices. Seeking damages for the severe harassment, mental agony, and physical pain suffered during his nearly two-month imprisonment, the businessman demanded strict action against the responsible officials.
A 57-Day Systemic Failure
While the initial machine error triggered the arrest, the court found that the state’s slow-moving investigative machinery is what kept an innocent citizen behind bars for 57 days.
Following the arrest, police seized the powders and sent samples to a regional forensic science laboratory. However, the regional lab held onto the packets for ten days before returning them untested, citing a lack of facilities to analyze MDEA.
Ultimately, the samples had to be sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) in Hyderabad. By the time the CFSL officially confirmed that the seized packets contained absolutely no contraband, the businessman had already spent 57 days in custody. A closure report was subsequently filed and accepted by a special NDPS court.
The Legal Battle: Who is Responsible?
The legal battle, which has been winding through the courts since 2011, saw various agencies attempt to deflect blame:
- The Airport Authority of India (AAI): Senior counsel representing the AAI argued that detecting narcotics is merely an “optional feature” of the ETD machines. They asserted that while AAI procures and maintains the machines, operational responsibility and subsequent law enforcement actions lie with other agencies, specifically the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and the airline operators.
- The State Government: State counsel contended that there was no malice on the part of state officials. They defended the timeline as a routine “procedural delay” in transferring samples to the central laboratory, arguing that local officials should not be condemned for it.
Court Slams Infrastructure Deficits, Holds State Liable
In the order dated April 27, Justice Deepak Khot rejected the state’s defense, emphasizing that a citizen’s fundamental right to life and liberty under the Constitution had been deeply violated.
The High Court expressed sharp frustration with the state’s local forensic facilities, questioning why highly qualified personnel are deployed at regional labs if they cannot perform standard chemical examinations due to a lack of proper equipment.
“It is for the State to understand why such infrastructure and deployment of highly qualified persons have been made in RFSLs [Regional Forensic Science Laboratories], when they cannot give any opinion in lack of equipments,” the court observed, noting that the petitioner had to suffer in jail for no fault of his own.
Declaring the case a clear instance of illegal confinement, the court ruled that the state is “vicariously liable” for the actions of its public servants.
“Applying the principle of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex court finding it to be most suitable case for illegal confinement, infringing the fundamental right of life and liberty of the petitioner, this court finds it appropriate to award compensation to the tune of Rs.10 Lacs to the petitioner,” the order stated.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the state government to pay the ₹10 lakh compensation within three months. The court noted that the state retains the right to be indemnified by any specific wrongdoers responsible for the lapse.
Additionally, because the case has been pending since 2011, the court declined to dismiss the petition on technicalities or force the victim to start over with a civil suit in 2026. However, the court clarified that the businessman remains at liberty to file an independent civil suit for further damages against the specific parties involved if he chooses to do so.
