UP to Challenge Allahabad HC Order Slapping ₹5 Lakh Fine on Noida DM Over NSA Detention of Girl Student
New Delhi: The Uttar Pradesh government will move the Supreme Court against an Allahabad High Court verdict that quashed the National Security Act detention of a Delhi University law student and directed recovery of ₹5 lakh compensation from the salary of Gautam Buddha Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam and other officers. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Wednesday that the High Court order “we are challenging.”
The High Court, in a scathing judgment by Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev, had set aside the NSA order against 24-year-old Akriti Chaudhary on September 2. The detailed reasons were released on September 7. Chaudhary, a history graduate from Daulat Ram College now studying at DU’s Faculty of Law, had spent nearly five months in custody after being named in 11 FIRs linked to the April 2026 workers’ protest in Noida. The court held that the detention violated Article 21 and that the District Magistrate had acted without application of mind.
‘Conduct worthy of derision’
Justice Sreedharan’s bench reserved its sharpest remarks for the District Magistrate. “In this case, the conduct of the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar, who passed the impugned order, is worthy of derision,” the judges wrote. They said the police dossier contained “only allegations without any credible material” and that the Magistrate was expected to examine the record “threadbare” before invoking the “oppressive provisions” of the NSA against a woman student activist with no previous criminal record.
The court concluded that the District Magistrate “desired to set an example” out of the petitioner and to deter others from exercising freedom of speech in support of workers. It held that Ms Roopam was “guilty of violating her oath of allegiance,” making the case fit for compensation. The bench warned that continued “despotic” conduct by errant officials could reduce Uttar Pradesh to an “Orwellian dystopia.” Officers, it said, must remember that their loyalty is to the Constitution, not the political executive.
Fine from officers’ salaries
The court awarded ₹5 lakh compensation to Chaudhary and directed that the amount be recovered from the salary of the District Magistrate “who passed the order of detention without application of mind” and “all such other officers who may have been responsible, right down to the Station House Officer” who prepared the initial report. It also ordered that its displeasure be recorded in the service records of the DM and the police officers concerned.
The judges found that material relied upon by the administration — WhatsApp chats, videos and case diary entries — did not show that Chaudhary had incited violence, arson or destruction of property. A notice under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita requiring a good-behaviour bond was described as an ex post facto exercise after she was already in custody and “nothing more than a sham.”
Still in jail in regular cases
Quashing of the NSA order does not mean immediate release. Chaudhary remains in judicial custody at Kasna jail in the underlying criminal cases after her bail applications were rejected. The High Court directed her release under the NSA only if she was not required in any other matter.
The state’s decision to approach the Supreme Court was mentioned during a separate hearing on Wednesday, when the CJI questioned a Greater Noida executive magistrate’s notice to another student despite earlier apex court directions protecting student protesters. Mehta used the occasion to state that the High Court’s findings against the Gautam Buddha Nagar administration would be challenged. No petition has yet been listed, but the announcement sets up a direct contest over whether preventive detention and personal recovery of compensation from a sitting District Magistrate can stand.
The case has drawn attention also because Medha Roopam is the daughter of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The High Court, however, confined itself to the legality of the detention and the duty of the detaining authority, not the officer’s family background. The Supreme Court will now decide whether those findings, the ₹5 lakh personal recovery and the strictures recorded in service files survive appellate scrutiny.
