Court Rules Detention Arbitrary and Violative of Article 21; Highlights Need for Credible Material and Procedural Fairness in NSA Cases
In a landmark judgment delivered on September 2, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev) set aside the detention of Akriti Chaudhary, a student activist, under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980. The petitioner had been detained in connection with alleged conspiracy and incitement leading to violence during labor unrest in Gautam Buddha Nagar in April 2026. The Court held that the detention was arbitrary, based on conjectures and lacked credible material, thus violating the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The case arose following widespread labor protests starting April 11, 2026, which escalated into violence and vandalism from April 13, 2026. Akriti Chaudhary, accused as an "agent provocateur" responsible for inciting violence, was arrested on April 11 evening (contentious with the State claiming April 12) and detained under NSA shortly thereafter. The State alleged that the petitioner conspired with associates to foment violence, pointing to WhatsApp chats and video evidence. However, the Court meticulously examined the sequence of events and the material evidence.
Significantly, the Court noted that all violence erupted after the petitioner had already been taken into custody, negating the claim that she incited or directly participated in violent acts. The WhatsApp chats did not reveal any incitement to violence but only calls to support laborers and protest peacefully. The Court also scrutinized procedural irregularities, such as the issuance of the notice under Section 130 BNSS post facto, after the petitioner’s arrest, indicating lack of bona fide and procedural mala fides.
The judgment elaborated that detention under NSA is an exceptional power that cannot be wielded arbitrarily to suppress freedom of speech or peaceful protests. It emphasized that grounds for detention must be substantiated by credible material, not mere surmises or opinions. The Court underscored the constitutional protection of the right to peaceful assembly and the role of the State’s police force in managing public order without infringing on civil liberties.
Further, the Court expressed strong displeasure at the conduct of the District Magistrate and police officers involved, noting that the detention order was passed without application of mind and to set an example to deter dissent. Holding the bureaucratic and police officers accountable, the Court directed payment of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner, to be recovered from the salaries of the District Magistrate and responsible police officials. The Court’s observations emphasized the importance of upholding the rule of law, accountability, and sensitivity in the exercise of state power.
Though the petitioner remains in judicial custody on unrelated criminal charges, this ruling marks a significant affirmation of constitutional liberties against misuse of preventive detention laws. The judgment reinforces that the National Security Act cannot be a tool to stifle legitimate dissent or peaceful expression, and procedural safeguards must be rigorously followed.
Bottom Line:
Detention under the National Security Act (NSA) is an exception and cannot be used to suppress freedom of speech and expression or peaceful protests. Grounds of detention must be supported by credible material, and arbitrary use of authority violates constitutional rights.
Statutory provision(s):
National Security Act, 1980; Article 21, Constitution of India; Section 130, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS); Sections 191(1), 191(2), 115(2), 121(1), 125(a), 351(3), 352 of BNSS; Section 7, Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932.
Akriti Chaudhary v. Union of India, (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2973643
