Akriti Chaudhary NSA Case: Noida DM Medha Roopam Moves SC Against HC Censure

Special Leave Petition challenges order quashing detention, granting compensation and directing recovery from salaries of officials

(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)

NEW DELHI/NOIDA: 14-9-2026 Gautam Buddha Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam has knocked on the doors of the Supreme Court, challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court that quashed the detention of Delhi University graduate Akriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act (NSA) and directed the recovery of compensation from the salaries of officials associated with the detention proceedings.

The move comes days after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed a Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana that the Uttar Pradesh government proposed to challenge the Allahabad High Court’s ruling.

High Court had quashed NSA detention

The matter arises out of protests organised by workers in Noida in April 2026 over employment and labour-related demands.

The demonstrations later turned violent, with incidents of stone-pelting and damage to vehicles reported during clashes.

Following the unrest, the police registered several criminal cases against protesters and other persons alleged to have been involved in the violence.

The Uttar Pradesh government subsequently invoked the NSA against Akriti Chaudhary and journalist Satyam Verma on May 13. They were among seven activists arrested in connection with separate cases arising from the protest.

Chaudhary, a history graduate of Delhi University, was detained on the allegation that she had played a role in instigating protesters.

The police had maintained that it possessed “strong electronic and videographic evidence” against her and others arrested in connection with the incidents.

The legality of Chaudhary’s continued preventive detention was later examined by the Allahabad High Court in habeas corpus proceedings.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev set aside the detention order and directed that Chaudhary be released forthwith, unless her custody was required in connection with any other case.

“In this case, the conduct of the District Magistrate Gautam Buddha Nagar who passed the impugned order, is worthy of derision. In a case where the police report against the Petitioner were only allegations without there being any credible material against her, the District Magistrate was expected to be vigilant and examine the record threadbare to determine if there was any material in support of the allegations and even thereafter, assess whether the oppressive provisions of the NSA were warranted against the Petitioner and how the general law of the land was inadequate against a female student activist without any previous criminal record, agitating for the rights of labourers and where the material on record did not disclose that she had in any way incited violence, reveals that the District Magistrate desired to set an example out of the Petitioner and deter others from exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression in public spaces in support of the labourers. The District Magistrate Gautam Buddha Nagar is guilty of violating her oath of allegiance, making this a fit case for the imposition of compensation to the petitioner.”

₹5 lakh compensation ordered

In a significant direction, the High Court also ordered payment of ₹5 lakh as compensation to Chaudhary. The Court directed that the amount be recovered from the salary of the District Magistrate and the officials responsible for preparing the report that ultimately formed the basis of her detention under the NSA.

The High Court’s order was based, among other things, on its finding that the material placed before it did not adequately establish Chaudhary’s specific role in the violence that occurred during the workers’ protest.

The Bench repeatedly called upon the State to identify material showing that Chaudhary had incited the protesters to engage in rioting, arson or destruction of public or private property. The Court noted that the State was unable to point to even a single message or video recording demonstrating such incitement.

Court’s observations on protest rights

The High Court made strong observations regarding the constitutional protection afforded to peaceful protest and freedom of speech and expression.

It observed that citizens have a constitutional right to gather peacefully and raise their grievances, and that such a right cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of the State’s subjective apprehension that public order may be disturbed.

The Court underscored that the right to protest does not automatically become unlawful merely because the gathering takes place in a public space.

It held that preventive detention under the NSA is an extraordinary measure and cannot be employed as a substitute for ordinary criminal custody, particularly on the assumption that an accused person may otherwise secure bail.

Justice Atul Sreedharan, who authored the judgment, observed that preventing citizens from assembling in public spaces or agitating for their rights merely on the ground of an assumed breach of peace would amount to “throwing the baby out of the bath water.”

The Bench also noted that the videos relied upon by the State showed a large gathering of men and women, many of them in traditional rural attire, near a lamp post. According to the Court, the material did not show that the crowd was armed with sticks, stones or other weapons, nor did it establish that Chaudhary had incited violence.

The protest, the Court observed, appeared to have been connected with grievances relating to wages and working conditions issues that fall within the sphere of legitimate democratic expression, subject to the bounds of law.

Warning against misuse of executive power

The High Court also reflected on the constitutional duties of civil servants and police officials.

It observed that the allegiance of members of the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service is to the Constitution and the country, and not to the political executive in an individual or partisan sense.

The Court cautioned that when public officials ignore their constitutional oath and fail to check executive excesses, they risk being perceived as an oppressive remnant of the colonial administration.

It further warned that failure to hold bureaucratic excesses accountable could push the State towards what it described as an “Orwellian Dystopia.”

The Supreme Court challenge filed by District Magistrate Medha Roopam now places the dispute before the country’s highest constitutional court.

The proceedings are expected to raise important questions concerning the scope of preventive detention under the NSA, the evidentiary threshold required to sustain such detention, the limits of executive discretion and the constitutional protection available to peaceful assemblies and public protests.