New Delhi, Sep 23 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the operation of the Allahabad High Court judgment, directing the recovery of Rs 5 lakh compensation from the salary of the Gautam Buddha Nagar District Magistrate and other officials for student activist Akriti Chaudhary’s detention under the National Security Act (NSA).
The apex court also stayed the High Court order, which quashed the student’s detention under the NSA.
A Bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and NK Singh passed the interim order while hearing separate petitions filed by Gautam Buddha Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam and the Uttar Pradesh government challenging the judgment of the Allahabad High Court.
The apex court granted permission to file the special leave petition (SLP) in the matter filed by Medha Roopam and issued notice to Akriti Chaudhary and other respondents. It also issued notice in the petition filed by the Uttar Pradesh government and other officials.
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for Chaudhary, accepted notice on her behalf. The respondents were granted two weeks’ time to file their replies.
After hearing senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Colin Gonsalves and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on the question of interim relief, the Supreme Court ordered that the operation of the impugned judgment, particularly paragraphs 27 to 33, will remain stayed until the matter is heard on merits.
The Justice Sharma-led Bench posted both matters for further hearing on October 7, 2026.
The Allahabad High Court, in its judgment passed on September 2, had allowed the habeas corpus petition filed by Chaudhary and held that her continued incarceration under the NSA was “violative of her rights under Article 21”. It directed that Chaudhary be set at liberty if she was not wanted in any other case and ordered payment of Rs 5 lakh compensation, to be recovered from the salary of the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar, as well as other officials found responsible, “right down to the SHO of the Police Station” who had prepared the initial report leading to her detention.
The case arose from labour unrest in Gautam Buddha Nagar in April 2026, when workers protested over low wages, long working hours and inadequate pay. The Uttar Pradesh government had claimed that Chaudhary acted as an “agent provocateur” and that her activities and dissemination of information contributed to violence that erupted from April 13.
However, Chaudhary had contended that the proceedings against her were an attempt to stifle her freedom of speech and expression and that there was no material warranting her detention under the stringent provisions of the NSA.
The High Court observed that the alleged violence had commenced only after Chaudhary was taken into custody. It also examined WhatsApp conversations and stated that the state government had failed to identify “a single message” or video clip showing that she had incited violence or disclosed any conspiracy to provoke rioting, arson or destruction of property.
The High Court further observed that the videos relied upon by the authorities showed people gathered peacefully and did not indicate that the crowd was armed or agitated. “Any detention under the NSA is an exception. It is not a substitute to ensure that a person who may receive bail on account of merits of his case is still detained in custody under a concocted reasoning by the State,” the High Court had said.
It had also held that the grounds of detention were “repetitive, speculative and are only opinion-based” and lacked supporting material for the District Magistrate’s conclusions. The High Court further observed that a notice issued under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) appeared to have been prepared after Chaudhary’s arrest, describing the procedure as “ex post facto the arrest and nothing more than a sham”.
On the compensation issue, the High Court had criticised the conduct of the Gautam Buddha Nagar District Magistrate and observed that the officer was expected to carefully examine the material before invoking the NSA against a female student activist. It had said the conduct of the District Magistrate was “worthy of derision” and held that the officer had “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 High Court had further observed that the District Magistrate was “guilty of violating his oath of allegiance” and held that the case warranted compensation. It had also stressed that peaceful agitation is protected by the Constitution and compared the role of protests to a “safety valve in a pressure cooker”, helping release accumulated public grievances rather than allowing them to build up to a point where violence becomes inevitable.
–IANS
pds/uk