The Allahabad High Court has strongly criticised Gautam Buddha Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam and police officials over the preventive detention of Delhi University graduate Akriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act (NSA), warning that unchecked bureaucratic excesses could push Uttar Pradesh towards an “Orwellian dystopia”.
A division bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev quashed Chaudhary’s NSA detention, holding that the extraordinary power of preventive detention could not be exercised on the basis of speculation, conjecture or unsupported allegations. The detailed order, made public on Monday, also directed payment of Rs 5 lakh as compensation, with the amount to be recovered from the salaries of officials found responsible, from the district magistrate down to the station house officer who prepared the initial report.
Chaudhary, a 25-year-old Delhi University graduate and student activist, had spent around five months in custody in connection with the workers’ agitation in Noida in April. The state alleged that she had instigated protesters to engage in stone-pelting and arson. The NSA was subsequently invoked against her.
Court finds no evidence of incitement
Examining WhatsApp conversations, videos, case diary entries and other material relied upon by the administration, the bench said the state was unable to point to a single message or video showing Chaudhary encouraging protesters to indulge in rioting, arson or destruction of property. It found that the material instead showed people assembling over demands concerning wages and working conditions.
The court was particularly critical of the district magistrate’s decision to approve the NSA detention. It observed that when a police report contained allegations without credible supporting material, the district magistrate was required to independently scrutinise the record before invoking a law carrying such serious consequences. The bench described Roopam’s conduct as “worthy of derision” and concluded that she appeared to have sought to make an example of Chaudhary to discourage others from supporting protesting workers.
The judges also identified discrepancies in the official account surrounding Chaudhary’s arrest and the issuance of a notice under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The court concluded that the notice relied upon by the authorities had been prepared after her arrest, describing the exercise as a sham.
‘Loyalty is to Constitution’
In wider observations on administrative responsibility, the bench reminded IAS and IPS officers that their allegiance was to the Constitution rather than the political executive and that their authority carried a corresponding obligation to protect citizens’ rights.
The court said peaceful assembly and protest were protected forms of democratic expression and cautioned authorities against restricting gatherings merely on the assumption that they could lead to a breach of peace. It stressed that the NSA was an exceptional preventive measure and could not become a substitute for ordinary criminal law.
The bench also directed that its displeasure with the district magistrate and police officials involved in preparing the detention dossier be entered in their service records.
While the NSA detention has been set aside, Chaudhary’s release remains subject to whether she is required in the criminal cases arising from the protest.