While quashing the National Security Act (NSA) detention of a 24-year-old Delhi University law student and activist, Akriti Chaudhary, the Allahabad High Court last week strongly criticized the manner in which the detention order was passed by the Noida District Magistrate.

The bench categorically warned that continued 'despotic' conduct by errant bureaucracy could reduce Uttar Pradesh to an “Orwellian Dystopia”

A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev held that Chaudhary's continued incarceration under the NSA violated her Fundamental Right under Article 21, as the detention order and grounds were devoid of material and were passed “without application of mind”.

The Court also awarded ₹5 lakh compensation to Chaudhary and directed that the amount be recovered from the salary of the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Medha Roopam, who passed the detention order, as well as other officers responsible, "right down to the SHO".

Chaudhary, 25, is a history graduate from Delhi University and was arrested in connection with cases arising from the Noida workers' protest in April 2026. The Uttar Pradesh Police subsequently invoked the National Security Act, 1980 against Chaudhary and activist/journalist Satyam Verma on May 13. They were among several activists arrested in cases relating to the peaceful protest seeking higher wages.

High Court's observations on bureaucracy and police

In its 15-page order, the bench made several significant observations on the roles of the bureaucracy and the police. It said officers are entrusted with immense powers because they bear responsibility for upholding the constitutional and legal rights, dignity, honour and welfare of citizens.

However, the Court stressed that they must remember that their "loyalty is towards the Constitution and not the political executive". It further said that officers are servants who serve the people, who are “the masters in a democracy”.

The Court warned that when bureaucrats and police officers ignore their oath and act contrary to it, people may view them as an "oppressive vestige of the British Empire", creating an environment of civil unrest.

The Bench added that "it shan't be long before the errant in the bureaucracy reduce the State of Uttar Pradesh to an Orwellian Dystopia".

The Court also said that, while correcting excesses or illegalities that impinge upon civil liberties without adequate cause or due process, the Judiciary could pass "harsh orders" to compensate wronged citizens.

High Court's observations on DM Gautam Buddha Nagar

The Court was particularly critical of the conduct of the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Medha Roopam, who had passed the NSA detention order.

It held that where the police report contained only allegations without credible supporting material, the District Magistrate was expected to examine the record 'threadbare' before deciding whether the stringent provisions of the NSA were warranted.

The Bench observed that Chaudhary was a female student activist with no previous criminal record, and the material did not show that she had incited violence. The Court concluded thus:

"The conduct of the District Magistrate Gautam Buddha Nagar who passed the impugned order, is worthy of derision."

It further held that the circumstances revealed that the District Magistrate "desired to set an example" out of Chaudhary and deter others from exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression in public spaces in support of llaborers

Court's observations on discrepancies in Police's case

The Court also found serious discrepancies regarding Chaudhary's arrest. In her case, she was taken into custody at about 5:30 PM on April 11, 2026, at Botanical Garden Metro Station in Noida. The State, however, maintained that she was arrested on April 12.

The State relied upon a notice under Section 130 BNSS relating to a bond for good behaviour.

The Court noted that the notice mentioned General Diary Entry No.3 7, which had itself been generated at 10:20 AM on April 12.

The High Court's order records that Justice Achal Sachdev pointed out that if the notice had been prepared before the arrest, the GD number could not have appeared on it.

Agreeing with the observation, the order, authored by Justice Sreedharan, observed thus:

"Mentioning the G.D. number in the notice under Section 130 of the BNSS reveals that the Petitioner was already arrested and the procedure of giving a notice under Section 130 of the BNSS was ex post facto the arrest and nothing more than a sham. I agree with the view of brother Justice Achal Sachdev that the notice u/s. 130 of the BNSS was prepared after the arrest of the Petitioner and that is the reason why the time of issuance is not mentioned in the notice and its omission is deliberate".

High Court's observs that WhatsApp chats did not show incitement to violence

The State had alleged that Chaudhary and her associates conspired to foment violence during labour agitation in Gautam Buddha Nagar.

Now, while examining the WhatsApp conversations and videos relied upon by the State, the bench repeatedly asked the State to identify material showing that Chaudhary had incited people to indulge in rioting, arson or destruction of public and private property.

The order states that the State could not point to "a single message" or video clip showing such incitement.

The Court also noted that the videos showed people gathering to agitate for higher pay and humane working hours, without showing the crowd to be armed or engaged in violence.

High Court's observations on NSA Detentions

The High Court observed that detention under the NSA is an exception and cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal law.

The Court held that the grounds of detention were "repetitive, speculative and are only opinion based", without a shred of evidence or material supporting those opinions. It stressed that the grounds of detention must traverse beyond mere allegations and opinion.

The Court further held that the extraordinary power resulting in incarceration cannot be exercised lightly on the basis of “surmises, biases, conjectures and opinions.”

High Court's observations on Peaceful labour protest

The Bench observed that freedom of speech and expression extends to people coming onto the streets, gathering peacefully and agitating for their rights. It cautioned against preventing public gatherings merely on the basis of an assumed breach of peace:

"Preventing people from gathering in public spaces or agitating their rights on the grounds of assumed breach of peace, would be throwing the baby out of the bath water".

The Court said the Constitution protects such collective expression and that the right "cannot be trifled with merely on the subjective opinion of the State".

Against the backdrop of these observations, and considering the State's "casual and cavalier exercise of authority" that had violated Chaudhary's constitutional rights, the Court held that ₹5 lakh in compensation was sufficient.

The Court directed recovery of the amount from the salary of the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar, and all such other officers who may have been responsible, "right down to the SHO" who had prepared the initial report supporting NSA detention.

It further directed that the Court's displeasure against the District Magistrate and police officers involved in preparing the dossier be recorded in their service records.

It may be noted that the petitioner continues to remain in judicial custody in the criminal cases even after the NSA detention order has been quashed, as her bail applications had been rejected.

Case Title: Akriti Chaudhary vs. Union Of India And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 645

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 645

Click here To Read/Download Order