NEW DELHI: The Allahabad High Court has ordered recovery of Rs 5 lakh from the salaries of the Gautam Buddha Nagar district magistrate and other officials after quashing the National Security Act (NSA) detention of Delhi University student and activist Akriti Chaudhary.The division bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev held that Chaudhary’s detention violated her fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, finding that the material relied upon by authorities did not justify invoking the stringent preventive detention law.The court directed that Rs 5 lakh be paid to Chaudhary as compensation and recovered from the salary of Gautam Buddha Nagar DM Medha Roopam and other officers found responsible, including the SHO who prepared the initial report backing her detention. It also directed that the court’s displeasure with the officials be entered in their service records.In a strongly worded September 2 order, the court criticised the manner in which the detention order was passed and warned that continued “despotic” conduct by “errant” bureaucrats could reduce Uttar Pradesh to an “Orwellian Dystopia”, reported PTI.Chaudhary, a 24-year-old history graduate, was arrested in connection with cases arising from a workers’ protest in Noida in April 2026. The UP Police invoked the NSA against her and activist-journalist Satya Verma on May 13. They were among activists arrested in cases related to the protest seeking higher wages.The court said the police dossier against Chaudhary contained allegations but lacked credible supporting material. It said the DM was required to independently examine the record before deciding whether preventive detention was warranted.“The conduct of the Gautam Buddha Nagar DM who passed the impugned order is worthy of derision,” the court said.The bench noted that Chaudhary had no previous criminal record and that there was no material showing she had incited violence. It said the circumstances suggested that the detention was intended to make an example of her and discourage others from exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression in support of labourers.The court also questioned the state’s version of when Chaudhary was arrested. It recorded that she was taken into custody around 5.30 pm on April 11 at Botanical Garden Metro Station, although the state claimed her arrest took place on April 12.A notice issued under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was cited by the state. However, the notice carried General Diary Entry No. 37, which was generated only at 10.20 am on April 12.“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,” Justice Sreedharan said.“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,” he added.The court said preventive detention under the NSA is an exception and cannot be used in place of ordinary criminal law. It described the grounds of Chaudhary’s detention as “repetitive, speculative and are only opinion-based”, noting the absence of material supporting those conclusions.It also cautioned authorities against treating peaceful public protests as a threat merely because they could potentially lead to a 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,” the court said.The bench said the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and expression extends to peaceful gatherings and collective action, and cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of the state’s subjective assessment.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
The court also reminded bureaucrats and police officers that their duty is to the Constitution rather than the political executive, saying that people are the masters in a democracy.It warned that officials who disregard their constitutional oath could come to be seen as an “oppressive vestige of the British Empire”, creating an environment of civil unrest.The court said the judiciary could pass “harsh orders” to compensate citizens where official excesses or illegalities infringe upon civil liberties without adequate cause or due process.
About The Author
