Prayagraj, Sep 7 Quashing the detention under the National Security Act (NSA) of a 24-year-old Delhi University student and activist Akriti Chaudhary, the Allahabad High Court has made strong observations against the Uttar Pradesh government, directing recovery of Rs 5 lakh from the salary of the Gautam Buddha Nagar DM and other officers.
The court strongly criticised the manner in which the detention order was passed by the Noida district magistrate (DM).
The division bench categorically warned that continued "despotic" conduct by "errant" bureaucracy could reduce UP to an Orwellian Dystopia.
A division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev held that Chaudhary's continued incarceration under the NSA violated her fundamental right under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) as the detention order and grounds were devoid of material and were passed without application of mind.
The high court also awarded Rs 5 lakh compensation to Chaudhary and directed that the amount be recovered from the salary of the Gautam Buddha Nagar DM Medha Roopam, who passed the detention order, as well as other officers responsible right down to the SHO.
Akriti Chaudhary (25) is a history graduate from Delhi University and was arrested in connection with cases arising from the Noida workers' protest in April 2026.
The UP 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 high court made several significant observations on the roles of the bureaucracy and the police. It said officers are entrusted with immense powers because they bear responsibility for upholding the constitutional and legal rights, dignity, honour and welfare of citizens.
However, the high court stressed that they must remember that their loyalty is towards the Constitution and not the political executive. It further said that officers are servants who serve the people. It said people are the masters in a democracy.
In this backdrop, the high court warned that when bureaucrats and police officers ignore their oath and act contrary to it, people may view them as an oppressive vestige of the British Empire, creating an environment of civil unrest.
The court also said that while correcting excesses or illegalities that impinge upon civil liberties without adequate cause or due process, the Judiciary could pass harsh orders to compensate wronged citizens.
The high court was particularly critical of the conduct of the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Medha Roopam, who had passed the NSA detention order.
It held that where the police report contained only allegations without credible supporting material, the District Magistrate was expected to examine the record before deciding whether the stringent provisions of the NSA were warranted.
The conduct of the Gautam Buddha Nagar DM who passed the impugned (under challenge) order is worthy of derision.
The court observed that Chaudhary was a female student activist with no previous criminal record, and the material did not show that she had incited violence.
It further held that the circumstances revealed that the DM desired 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 high court also found serious discrepancies regarding Chaudhary's arrest. In her case, she was taken into custody around 5.30 pm on April 11 at Botanical Garden Metro Station in Noida. The state, however, maintained that she was arrested on April 12.
The state relied upon a notice under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) relating to a bond for good behaviour.
The court noted that the notice mentioned General Diary (GD) Entry No. 37, which had itself been generated at 10.20 am on April 12.
The high court's order records that if the notice had been prepared before the arrest, the GD number could not have appeared on it.
"Mentioning the G.D. 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 u/s. 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 court observed that detention under the NSA is an exception and cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal law.
The court held that the grounds of detention were "repetitive, speculative and are only opinion-based", without a shred of evidence or material supporting those opinions. It stressed that the grounds of detention must traverse beyond mere allegations and opinion.
The high court observed that freedom of speech and expression extends to people coming onto the streets, gathering peacefully and agitating for their rights. It cautioned against preventing public gatherings merely on the basis of an assumed breach of peace.
"Preventing people from gathering in public spaces or agitating for their rights on the grounds of assumed breach of peace would be throwing the baby out of the bath water," it said.
The court said the Constitution protects such collective expression and that the right cannot be trifled with merely on the subjective opinion of the state.
The court directed recovery of the amount from the salary of the Gautam Buddha Nagar DM and all such other officers who may have been responsible, right down to the SHO, who had prepared the initial report supporting NSA detention.
It further directed that the court's displeasure against the DM and police officers involved in preparing the dossier be recorded in their service records.
