Back
Aakriti Chaudhary's NSA detention quashed by as 'concocted story by state'
In a stern rebuke to the
and state administration, the
on Wednesday quashed the five-month-long detention of student activist Aakriti Chaudhary under the
, calling the entire basis of her arrest a
"
."
The bench, comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev, directed her immediate release unless required in any other case and imposed a cost of ₹5 lakh on the state government, to be recovered from the erring officials who approved the NSA order.
The case stems from workers' protests that erupted in Noida in April, during which Chaudhary, a 25-year-old Delhi University graduate, was accused of instigating violence, including arson and stone pelting. Along with 65-year-old journalist and activist Satyam Verma, she was booked under the NSA—a stringent law that allows for detention without trial for up to 12 months. However, the court found that the state's narrative was riddled with procedural irregularities and lacked credible evidence.
A Flawed Arrest Process
During the hearing of Chaudhary's , the state informed the court that she was arrested at 10:56 a.m. on and that a notice under was served to her. Section 130 allows an executive magistrate to require a person to show cause or execute a bond for keeping the peace. However, the court immediately flagged a critical gap: the state had not served a prior notice under , which empowers a magistrate to issue a for maintaining peace before resorting to an arrest.
Justice Sreedharan observed that the BNSS procedure clearly mandates that Section 130 follows the earlier stage under Section 126.
"As per the notice under Section 130, if she was willing to give a statement, she would not be arrested. However, as per the general diary entry, she was arrested first and then served a notice,"
the bench noted. The general diary (GD) entry, which is a contemporaneous police record, showed that Chaudhary had already been taken into custody before the notice was even prepared. This inversion of the
led the court to conclude that the arrest was premeditated and not in accordance with law.
Senior advocate
, representing Chaudhary, argued that the state had manufactured a narrative to justify an unlawful detention. The court agreed, pointing out that the GD entry lacked a proper number or was handwritten, indicating that the arrest was not documented as per standard procedure.
"She was not presented before a magistrate, but was arrested first. Had she been arrested first, then there would not have been any GD number or it would have been handwritten,"
the bench observed, casting doubt on the official version of events.
No Evidence of Instigation
The state's case against Chaudhary rested on witness statements claiming she had incited the crowd to violence during the workers' protest on
. However, the court noted that the alleged violence did not occur on that day.
"Whatever violence has happened is after her arrest,"
the bench observed, highlighting a temporal disconnect that undermined the prosecution's theory. The court had earlier asked the state to produce video footage showing Chaudhary instigating stone pelting or arson, but the state failed to provide any such material evidence. Instead, it relied solely on witness statements, which the court found insufficient to justify
under the NSA.
"The court has come to a conclusion that Chaudhary did nothing wrong or spoke something that could have incited people to indulge in violence,"
Gonsalves told reporters after the hearing. The bench emphasised the fundamental right to
, noting that dissent and criticism of the government are protected under the Constitution.
"The order also highlights the importance of
and the need to speak against the governed,"
Gonsalves added, quoting the judgment.
Misuse of NSA and the Path Forward
The ruling is a significant blow to the Uttar Pradesh government's use of the NSA as a tool to silence activists and protesters. Legal experts have long warned that the NSA, originally designed for exceptional circumstances such as national security threats, is increasingly being deployed against ordinary citizens engaged in lawful protest. The High Court's decision underscores the need for strict adherence to before invoking such draconian powers.
The court's observation that the NSA order was a
"
"
and a "misuse of power" sends a clear message to law enforcement agencies:
cannot be used as a shortcut to bypass criminal procedure. The imposition of costs recoverable from the erring officials serves as a deterrent against arbitrary action. This is not the first time the
has pulled up the state for misuse of the NSA; similar cases have arisen in the context of communal violence and political protests.
For legal practitioners, the case reinforces the importance of habeas corpus petitions in challenging unlawful detention. The court's rigorous scrutiny of the procedural timeline—from the GD entry to the service of notice—demonstrates that even the slightest deviation from statutory requirements can vitiate an arrest. The ruling also clarifies that the state cannot rely on vague witness statements without corroborative material, especially when the detention is based on allegations of instigation.
Conclusion
The quashing of Aakriti Chaudhary's NSA detention is a victory for civil liberties and the . It affirms that no executive action, however well-intentioned, can override the constitutional safeguards enshrined in the . As Chaudhary walks free after five months behind bars, the spotlight now turns to the state government's accountability. The direction to recover ₹5 lakh from the erring officials is a step towards ensuring that those who abuse their power are held personally liable. For the legal community, this judgment will be cited as a precedent against the misuse of laws and a reaffirmation of the judiciary's role as the ultimate guardian of individual freedoms.
