LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court has quashed the detention of Delhi University student and activist Akriti Chaudhary, 24, under the National Security Act (NSA), strongly admonishing the Noida District Magistrate over the manner in which her detention order was passed.
A division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev said continued despotic conduct by errant bureaucracy could reduce Uttar Pradesh to an Orwellian Dystopia.
The court also awarded Rs 5 lakh compensation to Chaudhary and directed the authorities to recover the amount from the salaries of Gautam Buddha Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam, who passed the detention order, and other officers responsible, right down to the SHO.
The bench held that Chaudhary’s continued incarceration under the NSA infringed her fundamental right under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. It said the detention order and grounds of incarceration were devoid of material and had been passed without application of mind.
The court was particularly critical of the conduct of Medha Roopam, observing that the police report contained allegations without credible supporting material. It said the District Magistrate was required to examine the record threadbare before deciding whether the stringent provisions of the NSA were warranted, and described her conduct in passing the impugned order as worthy of derision.
The court further directed that its displeasure with the District Magistrate and police officers involved in preparing the dossier be recorded in their service records.
Chaudhary continues to remain in judicial custody in the criminal cases against her, as her bail applications have been rejected. She was arrested in connection with cases arising from the Noida workers’ protest in April 2026.
The Uttar Pradesh Police subsequently invoked the National Security Act, 1980, against Chaudhary and activist/journalist Satya Verma on May 13. They were among several activists arrested in cases relating to the peaceful protest seeking higher wages.
In its 15-page order dated September 2, the bench made several observations on the roles of the bureaucracy and police. It said officers were entrusted with immense powers because they had the responsibility of upholding the constitutional and legal rights, dignity, honour and welfare of citizens.
However, the court stressed that their loyalty was to the Constitution and not the political executive. It said officers were servants who served the people, who were the masters in a democracy.
The court warned that when bureaucrats and police officers ignored their oath and acted contrary to it, people could view them as an oppressive vestige of the British Empire, creating an environment of civil unrest.
The bench noted that Chaudhary was a female student activist with no previous criminal record and that the material did not show she had incited violence. It further held that the circumstances indicated that the District Magistrate wanted to set an example out of Chaudhary and deter others from exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression in public spaces in support of labourers.
The court also highlighted discrepancies in the circumstances of Chaudhary’s arrest. It said she was taken into custody at around 5:30 pm on April 11, 2026, at Botanical Garden Metro Station in Noida, while the state maintained that she was arrested on April 12.
The state relied on a notice under Section 130 of the BNSS relating to a bond for good behaviour. The court noted that the notice mentioned General Diary Entry No. 37, which had been generated at 10:20 am on April 12.
The High Court observed that if the notice had been prepared before the arrest, the GD number could not have appeared on it.
“Mentioning the GD number in the notice under section 130 of the BNSS reveals that the petitioner was already arrested and the procedure of giving a notice under section 130 of the BNSS was ex-post facto the arrest and nothing more than a sham. I agree with the view of brother Justice Achal Sachdev that the notice under Section 130 of the BNSS was prepared after the arrest of the petitioner and that is the reason why the time of issuance is not mentioned in the notice and its omission is deliberate,” Justice Atul Sreedharan said.
The state had alleged that Chaudhary and her associates conspired to foment violence during labour agitation in Gautam Buddha Nagar. While examining the WhatsApp conversations and videos relied upon by the state, the court repeatedly asked it to identify material showing that Chaudhary had incited people to indulge in rioting, arson or destruction of public and private property.
The order said the state could not point to a single message or video clip showing such incitement.
The High Court observed that detention under the NSA was an exception and could not be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal law. It held that the grounds of detention were “repetitive, speculative and are only opinion-based”, without evidence or material supporting those opinions.
The bench stressed that grounds of detention must go beyond mere allegations and opinion, adding that the extraordinary power resulting in incarceration could not be exercised lightly based on surmises, biases, conjectures and opinions.
The court further observed that freedom of speech and expression extended to people coming onto the streets, gathering peacefully and agitating for their rights. It cautioned against preventing public gatherings merely based on an assumed breach of peace.
The bench said the Constitution protected such collective expression and that the right could not be trifled with merely on the subjective opinion of the state.
Against this backdrop, and considering what it described as the state’s casual and cavalier exercise of authority that violated Chaudhary’s constitutional rights, the court held that Rs 5 lakh was sufficient compensation.
