Allahabad HC Quashes Activist’s NSA Detention, Orders Rs 5 Lakh Compensation
The High Court was particularly critical of the role played by Gautam Buddha Nagar DM Medha Roopam in ordering Chaudhary's detention under the NSA.
The Allahabad High Court has sharply criticised the Uttar Pradesh administration over the detention of Delhi University student activist Akriti Chaudhary under the stringent National Security Act (NSA), saying the law cannot be used to suppress legitimate dissent.
The court quashed the detention of the 24-year-old activist and ordered that she be paid Rs 5 lakh in compensation for spending around five months in custody. It directed that the compensation be recovered from the salaries of the Gautam Buddha Nagar District Magistrate and other officials involved in the case, "right down to the SHO".
The court also strongly criticised Noida District Magistrate Medha Roopam, who had issued the NSA detention order against Chaudhary.
In its 15-page order dated September 2, a division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev made several strong observations about the conduct of the bureaucracy and police. Referring to the works of English writer George Orwell, the bench warned that continued "despotic" behaviour by "errant" bureaucrats could push Uttar Pradesh towards an Orwellian dystopia.
Court Says NSA Detention Violated Article 21
The High Court held that Chaudhary's continued detention under the NSA violated her fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
According to the court, the detention order and the grounds cited for it lacked substantive material and showed a failure to apply proper judicial and administrative consideration.
Chaudhary, a history graduate from Delhi University, was arrested in cases linked to a workers' protest in Noida in April 2026. The demonstrations were related to demands for higher wages.
The Uttar Pradesh Police invoked the NSA against Chaudhary and activist-journalist Satya Verma on May 13. Both were among several activists arrested in connection with cases arising from the protests.
‘People Are The Masters In A Democracy’
The court said bureaucrats and police officers exercise significant powers because they are responsible for protecting the constitutional and legal rights, dignity, honour and welfare of citizens.
However, it stressed that their allegiance must remain with the Constitution rather than the political executive.
The officers, the court said, are servants of the people, emphasising that "people are the masters in a democracy".
It warned that when officials disregard their constitutional oath and act contrary to it, citizens may begin to see them as an "oppressive vestige of the British Empire", potentially creating conditions for civil unrest.
The bench also cautioned that continued "despotic" conduct by errant officials could turn Uttar Pradesh into an "Orwellian Dystopia".
Court Slams Noida DM’s Detention Order
The High Court was particularly critical of the role played by Gautam Buddha Nagar DM Medha Roopam in ordering Chaudhary's detention under the NSA.
It said that when a police report contains allegations without credible supporting material, the District Magistrate must independently examine the evidence before deciding whether the stringent NSA provisions should be invoked.
The court said the conduct of the Gautam Buddha Nagar DM who passed the challenged order was "worthy of derision".
It further observed that the circumstances suggested that the DM intended to make an example of Chaudhary and discourage others from exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression in public spaces while supporting labourers.
NSA Cannot Replace Ordinary Criminal Law
The court emphasised that detention under the NSA is an exceptional measure and cannot be used as an alternative to the ordinary criminal justice system.
It found that the grounds cited for Chaudhary's detention were "repetitive, speculative and are only opinion-based", with no supporting evidence or material to substantiate those opinions.
The court stressed that grounds for preventive detention must go beyond allegations and personal opinions.
It also ordered that its displeasure with the DM and the police officers involved in preparing the dossier be recorded in their service records.
Top Headlines
