PRAYAGRAJ: In a scathing indictment of executive overreach, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the detention of Akriti Chaudhary, a 25-year-old Delhi University law student and activist, under the draconian National Security Act (NSA). The court lambasted Gautam Buddha Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam for her “despotic” conduct, warning that such actions by errant bureaucrats could plunge Uttar Pradesh into an “Orwellian Dystopia.”
A Division Bench comprising Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev set aside the May 13 NSA detention order, characterizing the State’s case as a “concocted story” devoid of credible evidence. The court ordered Chaudhary’s immediate release unless she is required in another case and directed the State to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation for the violation of her fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Significantly, the bench mandated that this compensation be recovered directly from the salaries of DM Medha Roopam and all responsible police officials, “right down to the Station House Officer (SHO)” who prepared the initial report.
Chaudhary, a history graduate from DU pursuing law, was arrested on April 12, 2026, during a workers’ protest in Noida. The UP Police accused her of instigating protesters to engage in arson and stone-pelting. A month later, the District Magistrate authorized her preventive detention under the NSA, a stringent law that allows the state to detain individuals for months without formal charge or trial to prevent them from acting in a manner prejudicial to national security or public order.
“Conduct Worthy of Derision” The High Court’s ruling, delivered on September 2 and made public this week, systematically dismantled the grounds for detention. The judges found the grounds to be “repetitive, speculative and only opinion-based,” lacking a “shred of evidence.”
The bench came down heavily on DM Medha Roopam, observing that her conduct was “worthy of derision.” The court emphasized the legal threshold for invoking the NSA, noting that preventive detention is an exceptional measure, not a substitute for ordinary criminal law.
“In a situation where the police report against the petitioner contained mere allegations devoid of credible evidence, the District Magistrate should have been diligent in scrutinizing the records to ascertain if there was any supporting material,” the bench remarked.
Instead of applying her mind “threadbare” to the facts, the court observed, the Magistrate acted mechanically. The bench noted that Roopam appeared determined to “set an example” out of the student activist, seemingly to deter others from exercising their constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression in public spaces to advocate for workers’ rights.
The court further noted that the State had failed to produce any video footage—despite a September 1 judicial directive—to substantiate claims that Chaudhary had incited violence or arson.
The judgment (Akriti Chaudhary vs. Union of India) serves as a critical reaffirmation of civil liberties against the casual invocation of preventive detention laws. By holding the authorizing magistrate and police officers financially liable, the Allahabad High Court has established a rare and potent precedent for executive accountability. It underscores that the invocation of the NSA requires rigorous application of mind based on tangible material, not mere police speculation or a desire to stifle dissent.
While the NSA order has been quashed, Chaudhary reportedly remains in judicial custody as her bail applications in the underlying criminal cases are still pending.