Power must answer to the law. That is the larger significance of the Allahabad High Court’s criticism of the Gautam Buddha Nagar administration over the preventive detention of student-activist Akriti Chaudhary. The immediate issue is the invocation of the National Security Act without, in the court’s assessment, sufficient material to justify so grave a curtailment of liberty. The court’s observations on the administration were unusually strong, describing its conduct as an “Orwellian dystopia”. The remark is a reminder of the responsibility that accompanies the considerable powers vested in a district magistrate.
Chaudhary’s case is part of the larger story of protests over paper leaks, amid growing disquiet among students including over the offhand “cockroach” remark. The July protests were followed by allegations of excessive police force. The Supreme Court subsequently intervened and directed the withdrawal of FIRs against the students.
The episode raises a larger question about the manner in which State power is exercised when citizens challenge authority. Laws such as the NSA confer extraordinary powers on the Executive precisely because circumstances may sometimes demand exceptional action. But the greater the power, the greater the obligation to establish that its use is necessary and proportionate. It therefore demands the highest degree of scrutiny and restraint.
This is also why institutional checks matter. The Executive, Legislature and Judiciary have distinct constitutional roles, but none exists in isolation from the larger constitutional framework. When one institution has to step in to correct the lapses of another, the objective should not be to establish institutional superiority. It should be to restore the balance that protects the citizen.
The Judiciary has given important directions in the cases arising from the student protests, and its strong observations should not be dismissed merely as rhetoric. The capacity for reflection must extend to every institution. As Chief Justice Surya Kant has said, “Judges, like the institutions they lead, remain capable of growth, correction and improvement.”
That principle applies to all institutions entrusted with public power. Their authority derives ultimately from the Constitution and is sustained by the manner in which the authority is exercised. The citizen, particularly when challenging authority, must not become more vulnerable because the State possesses greater power. Constitutional power carries with it a corresponding duty of restraint, accountability and fairness.
