SC stays Allahabad HC strictures against Noida DM over student’s NSA detention

The Supreme Court Wednesday stayed key parts of an Allahabad High Court judgment that had sharply reprimanded Gautam Buddh Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam over the detention of Delhi University graduate Akriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act (NSA), including the direction to recover compensation of Rs 5 lakh from the officer’s salary.

A Bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and N Kotiswar Singh passed the interim order on petitions filed by Roopam and the Uttar Pradesh government challenging the High Court’s September 2 judgment. The apex court also stayed the operation of the judgment insofar as it had quashed Chaudhary’s NSA detention, according to reports on the order.

‘Can’t isolate her’

During the hearing, the Supreme Court questioned whether Roopam could be singled out for personal liability when the decision to invoke the NSA had passed through several levels of the administration.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Roopam, submitted that there were multiple stages in the process before the District Magistrate issued the detention order and that her statutory role was to independently form an opinion on the material placed before her. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, also argued that the proposal had moved through officials including the Station House Officer, Deputy Commissioner of Police and Commissioner before reaching the District Magistrate.

The Bench orally observed that if the decision-making process had moved through an administrative chain, the District Magistrate could not simply be isolated for the Rs 5 lakh liability. It also took note of the argument that the NSA Advisory Board had subsequently examined the detention.

Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for Chaudhary, opposed the pleas and defended the High Court’s findings on the legality of the preventive detention.

HC had ordered compensation

The Allahabad High Court had on September 2 quashed the NSA detention of 25-year-old Chaudhary, a History graduate from Delhi University, who had been detained in connection with a workers’ protest in Noida in April.

A Bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev had severely criticised the material relied upon to invoke the stringent preventive detention law. It held that the District Magistrate was expected to carefully scrutinise the record before resorting to the NSA and found the material placed against Chaudhary insufficient to justify her preventive detention.

The High Court had ordered payment of Rs 5 lakh as compensation to Chaudhary and directed that the amount be recovered from the salaries of Roopam and other officials responsible for preparing the report that led to the NSA detention. It had also directed that the court’s displeasure against the officials be entered in their service records.

The High Court had held Roopam “guilty of violating her oath of allegiance” to the Constitution and used unusually strong language while criticising the manner in which the detention order was passed.

Arrest followed Noida protest

Chaudhary had been arrested in connection with cases arising from a workers’ protest in Noida in April. The Uttar Pradesh government had alleged that she was involved in planning and mobilising activities linked to the agitation and subsequently invoked the NSA against her in May.

Chaudhary challenged the preventive detention before the High Court through a habeas corpus petition. While quashing the NSA order, the High Court distinguished preventive detention from prosecution in ordinary criminal cases and scrutinised whether the material before the District Magistrate was sufficient to justify the extraordinary power of detention without trial.

The Supreme Court proceedings arose after Roopam and the Uttar Pradesh government challenged those findings and the directions imposing personal financial and service consequences on the officials involved.

The apex court’s interim order puts the High Court’s adverse directions on hold while the challenge remains before the Supreme Court.