Back
Quashes NSA Detention of Student Activist Akriti Chaudhary, Awards ₹5 Lakh
In a landmark ruling that reaffirms the primacy of over executive overreach, the quashed the of a 24-year-old law student and activist, Akriti Chaudhary, under the . The Court also awarded ₹5 lakh in compensation to the petitioner, ordering the amount to be recovered from the salary of the District Magistrate of Gautam Buddha Nagar and other officers involved in the case.
The Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev held that Chaudhary's continued incarceration under the NSA violated her under . The detention order was found to be devoid of material and passed "," with the Court further warning that such 'despotic' conduct by errant bureaucrats could reduce Uttar Pradesh to an "Orwellian Dystopia."
A 24-Year-Old History Graduate Caught in the Crosshairs
Akriti Chaudhary, a history graduate from with an MA from and a first-year law student, was arrested in connection with protests by industrial workers in Noida in April 2026. The workers were agitating for higher wages and humane working hours, alleging they earned between ₹10,000 and ₹15,000 for 12-hour shifts. Thousands of workers took to the streets, and violence erupted on April 13, with incidents of vandalism and arson.
The prosecution alleged that Chaudhary was the "" who conspired to foment the violence, leading to her arrest on , in connection with multiple FIRs, including one under the and the . Subsequently, the District Magistrate invoked the NSA against her.
‘From 5:30 PM on April 11’: The Timeline That Exposed the State’s Case
The High Court closely examined the timeline of Chaudhary's arrest, which became a decisive factor in the case. The petitioner contended she was taken into custody at 5:30 PM on , from the Botanical Garden Metro Station in Noida. The State insisted she was arrested on April 12. To verify this, the Court scrutinized WhatsApp chats between Chaudhary and an associate, Priyambada.
The chats revealed that after 5:56 PM on April 11, Priyambada sent multiple messages and made a missed call, none of which were answered by Chaudhary. The Court reasoned that the only plausible explanation was that her phone was no longer with her or she was in a position where she could not respond—probabilising the petitioner's version that she was in custody from the evening of April 11. This finding, the Court noted,
"falsifies the contention of the State that the Petitioner was in the custody of the State only from 12.04.2026."
The ‘Sham’ Notice Under Section 130 BNSS
The Court also exposed a serious procedural irregularity. The State relied on a notice under Section 130 BNSS, requiring Chaudhary to furnish a bond for good behaviour, claiming she was arrested after refusing to do so. However, Justice Achal Sachdev pointed out that the notice mentioned General Diary Entry No. 37, which was itself generated at 10:20 AM on April 12. If the notice had been issued before the arrest, the GD number could not have appeared on it.
Justice Atul Sreedharan concurred, observing:
"Mentioning the G.D. number in the notice under
reveals that the Petitioner was already arrested and the procedure of giving a notice under
was
the arrest and nothing more than a sham."
The Court noted that the time of issuance was deliberately omitted from the notice.
No Incitement: WhatsApp Chats and Videos Failed to Prove Violence
The State had relied on WhatsApp conversations and video clips to justify the NSA detention, alleging that Chaudhary incited workers to violence. The Court repeatedly asked the State to point out any message or video showing incitement, but the State could not do so. The Bench observed that the videos showed people gathered peacefully, exercising their constitutional right to freedom of speech and agitating for higher pay and humane working hours.
The Court held that the grounds of detention were
"repetitive, speculative and are only opinion based,"
without
"a shred of evidence or material"
supporting the allegations. It emphasised that the extraordinary power of
cannot be exercised on
"surmises, biases, conjectures and opinions."
Loyalty to Constitution, Not the Political Executive
In its 15-page order, the High Court made sweeping observations on the role of bureaucracy and police. It reminded officers that their allegiance is to the Constitution, not the political executive, and that they are servants of the people, who are the "masters in a democracy."
The Court warned that when bureaucrats and police ignore their oath and act contrary to it, they risk being viewed as an
"oppressive vestige of the British Empire,"
creating civil unrest. It added:
"It shan't be long before the errant in the bureaucracy reduce the State of Uttar Pradesh to an Orwellian Dystopia."
Compensation with a Sting: Recovery from DM's Salary
While quashing the detention order, the Court noted that the petitioner would remain in judicial custody in the criminal cases, as her bail application had been rejected. However, the Court found that the
"casual and cavalier exercise of authority"
by the State through the District Magistrate warranted compensation. It awarded
₹5 lakh
, directing that the amount be recovered from the salary of the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Medha Roopam, and from all other officers responsible
"right down to the SHO"
who prepared the initial report. The Court also directed that its displeasure against these officers be recorded in their service records.
The petition was disposed of as allowed, with the Court declaring the continued NSA incarceration violative of Article 21. The judgment serves as a powerful reminder that even in the face of security concerns, the Constitution's guarantee of civil liberties cannot be trammeled by executive overreach.
