The Allahabad High Court has quashed the preventive detention of Delhi University history graduate Akriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act (NSA), ordering ₹5 lakh in compensation to be recovered directly from the salary of Gautam Buddh Nagar District Magistrate Medha Rupam. A bench comprising Justice Atul Sridharan and Justice Achal Sachdeva delivered the ruling while hearing Chaudhary's habeas corpus petition, observing that the state's case rested on what it described as a fabricated story. The court has directed her immediate release, provided she isn't required in connection with any other criminal matter, though her actual release remains subject to pending bail proceedings in related protest cases.
How the Case Began
Chaudhary was initially taken into custody in April, following a workers' agitation in Noida over wage revisions and working conditions, during which incidents of arson and stone-pelting were recorded. Uttar Pradesh Police subsequently invoked the National Security Act against Chaudhary and social activist Satyam Verma on May 13.
Where the Court Found the Process Broke Down
During the habeas corpus proceedings, the bench directed the state administration to demonstrate the substantive material actually used to justify invoking preventive detention against Chaudhary. The court specifically examined the statutory procedures that should have preceded her detention. Counsel for the state confirmed she'd been served notice under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, but the bench raised pointed questions about whether the mandatory procedures under Section 126 of the same code had been followed beforehand. Ultimately, the state acknowledged before the bench that no notice under Section 126 had been issued prior to invoking the subsequent detention measures against her, a procedural gap the court treated as significant.
No Video Evidence to Back the Incitement Claim
At the time of her arrest, local police had asserted they possessed decisive electronic and video recordings linking Chaudhary to the unrest. During the hearings, the High Court directed prosecutors to actually place that specific video evidence and supporting documentation on record to substantiate the incitement claims.
After reviewing what was submitted, the court found the state had relied on witness statements but failed to produce any definitive video footage showing Chaudhary inciting demonstrators to damage property or engage in violence. The bench specifically examined whether any of the visual material showed her provoking demonstrators to throw stones or set public vehicles on fire, and found a total absence of direct electronic evidence supporting the alleged incitement.
Chaudhary's Defence
Chaudhary, who took part in the demonstration as a social activist, was represented before the High Court by senior advocate Colin Gonsalves alongside advocate Charlie Prakash. Her legal team argued she wasn't an organiser of the protest and had merely extended solidarity to the labour movement, making her preventive detention improper and disproportionate to her actual involvement.
What the Ruling Actually Sets Aside
The judgment formally quashes the preventive detention order that kept Chaudhary in custody for nearly five months. The court emphasised that administrative decisions imposing preventive detention require strict adherence to procedural requirements and verifiable evidence, standards it found the state's case here didn't meet. That said, Chaudhary will remain in custody if her continued detention proves legally necessary in the separate, pending criminal cases connected to the Noida agitation, meaning today's ruling on the NSA detention doesn't automatically resolve those parallel proceedings. The detailed judicial order is expected to outline the administrative shortcomings the court identified in full.
FAQs
Q1. What did the Allahabad High Court rule in this case?
It quashed Akriti Chaudhary's preventive detention under the NSA, ordering ₹5 lakh in compensation to be recovered from Gautam Buddh Nagar DM Medha Rupam's salary, and directed her release unless required in another criminal matter.
Q2. Why did the court find the detention improper?
It found the state failed to follow mandatory statutory procedure under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita before invoking detention, and couldn't produce video evidence substantiating claims that Chaudhary incited violence.
Q3. Is Akriti Chaudhary immediately free?
Not necessarily. Her physical release remains subject to separate, pending bail proceedings in related criminal cases connected to the Noida protests.
Q4. What triggered her original arrest?
A workers' agitation in Noida in April over wage revisions and working conditions, during which incidents of arson and stone-pelting occurred, after which the NSA was invoked against her on May 13.