The Allahabad High Court has mandated compensation for a student unlawfully detained under the National Security Act, criticising administrative conduct.
The Allahabad High Court has directed that a payment of ₹5 lakh (approximately £5,100) be awarded to 25-year-old Akriti Chaudhary, a graduate from Delhi University. This compensation stems from her unlawful detention under the National Security Act (NSA) in response to her involvement in a peaceful protest supporting workers’ rights in Noida, which took place in April 2026.
Chaudhary had been in judicial custody for nearly five months. The court quashed her detention on September 2, 2023, and publicly released its detailed judgement on September 5. The bench, consisting of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev, strongly condemned the actions of Medha Roopam, the district magistrate of Gautam Buddha Nagar, describing her conduct as ‘worthy of derision’.
The court noted that the magistrate appeared to have used Chaudhary as an example to deter others from participating in protests, which the justices found unacceptable. The ruling underscored that administrative actions should not compromise the rights of individuals.
In its judgement, the court rebuked the district magistrate for what it termed bureaucratic overreach, reminding Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and Indian Police Service (IPS) officers that their primary allegiance is to the Constitution rather than political forces. The bench stated, ‘Their loyalty is towards the Constitution and the people they serve.’ It further warned that neglecting this duty could lead Uttar Pradesh to resemble ‘an Orwellian Dystopia’.
The court examined the evidence that had led to Chaudhary’s detention, which included WhatsApp conversations, video footage, and diary entries. However, the court found substantial flaws in the case presented by the state administration, challenging the validity of the notice issued to Chaudhary under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which is designed to require individuals to execute a bond for good behaviour.
Testimonies indicated that the police claimed the notice was provided to Chaudhary on April 12, necessitating a ₹50,000 bond, but the court determined that she was in custody the evening before and had not been given a bona fide opportunity to comply with the bond requirement. The court stated, ‘The procedure of giving a notice under Section 130 of the BNSS was ex post facto and nothing more than a sham.’
Upon inspecting the broader context of the arrest, the bench discovered that the materials presented did not corroborate claims that Chaudhary had incited violence. In fact, the state’s evidence did not include messages or videos demonstrating any intent to encourage rioting or property destruction. January 2023 saw violence erupt after her arrest, but the court clarified that this could not be linked to any alleged conspiracy on her part.
Highlighting the serious implications of preventive detention under the NSA, the ruling asserted that such powers should not be employed lightly. The court remarked, ‘Preventive detention under the NSA is an exception and cannot be exercised on the basis of surmises, biases, conjectures and opinions.’ It pointed out that restricting peaceful gatherings based on anticipated risks could undermine democratic freedoms and rights.
Instead of employing prevention through detention, the court suggested that authorities improve their capabilities in managing public protests and accountability during any ensuing disorder.
As part of its orders, the court mandated that the disapproval toward the district magistrate and the police officials be recorded in their service records, emphasising the need for adherence to constitutional values and fundamental rights in their decision-making processes.
