LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday quashed the National Security Act (NSA) detention of 25-year-old Delhi University history graduate Aakriti Chaudhary, who has been in custody for around five months in connection with the Noida workers’ protest in April this year.
Allowing her habeas corpus petition challenging her detention, a division Bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev said that the detention was based on a “concocted story” by the state.
Hence, the Bench directed the immediate release of Aakriti Chaudhary if her arrest was not warranted in any other case.
The Bench passed the order after examining the sequence of her arrest and the issuance of notices under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) closely.
The Bench found several procedural lapses; however, a detailed order in the matter is awaited.
During Wednesday’s hearing, the State informed the Court that Chaudhary was arrested at 10:56 AM on April 12, 2026, and that a notice under Section 130 of the BNSS was issued to her.
The State claimed that Chaudhary had instigated the mob to resort to arson and stone-pelting.
Justice Sreedharan asked whether a notice under Section 126 of the BNSS was first served. The State replied that no notice under Section 126 was given and that a notice under Section 130 had been issued.
The Bench then examined the sequence contemplated under the BNSS and noted that the procedure under Section 130 followed the earlier stage under Section 126.
Justice Sreedharan observed: “As per the notice under Section 130 of BNSS, if she was willing to give a statement, she wouldn’t be arrested.” The Court thus questioned the State’s version on the basis of the General Diary (GD) entry, observing that the record appeared to show that Chaudhary had already been arrested before the notice was prepared.
The Court also examined the State’s contention regarding Chaudhary’s alleged involvement in the violence during the workers’ protest.
The State submitted that people had gathered for the protest on April 11. Justice Sreedharan then pointed out that it meant there was no violence on April 11.
“Whatever violence happened was after her arrest.” The observation was made in light of the fact that the Bench was examining whether the material relied upon by the State could actually establish Chaudhary’s role in the alleged violence.
It may be noted that earlier, on Tuesday, the Court had specifically asked the State to show footage indicating whether Chaudhary had instigated protesters to indulge in stone-pelting or set vehicles on fire. The State had sought time to produce the video, but the Bench had declined to grant further time, noting that Chaudhary had already spent five months in jail.
On Tuesday, the Bench had asked the State whether it was recorded that Chaudhary had called people and told them to throw stones.
The Court had also asked if there was material showing that she had asked protesters to set vehicles on fire. When the State said that the chargesheet had been filed, Justice Sreedharan said that after the submission of the chargesheet, the State should have seen if the witnesses had named her.
The State then relied upon witness statements naming Chaudhary. However, the Bench specifically asked if the videography showed her allegedly instigating protesters.
Background
Chaudhary, 25, is a history graduate from Delhi University and was arrested in connection with cases arising from the Noida workers’ protest.
The Uttar Pradesh Police subsequently invoked the National Security Act, 1980, against Chaudhary and activist/journalist Satyam Verma on May 13. They were among several activists arrested in cases relating to the protest.
At the time, Gautam Buddh Nagar Police Commissioner Laxmi Singh had claimed that the police possessed “strong electronic and videographic evidence” against Chaudhary, Verma and other arrested persons. Chaudhary thereafter approached the High Court through a habeas corpus petition challenging her continued detention.
