Allahabad High Court Quashes NSA Detention of Student Activist Akriti Chaudhary
The Allahabad High Court has ruled against the National Security Act (NSA) detention of Akriti Chaudhary, a 24-year-old student activist from Delhi University, who was arrested following a workers' protest in Noida in April 2026. The court ordered that five lakh rupees be recovered from the salaries of Gautam Buddha Nagar district magistrate Medha Roopam and other officials involved in the case. The ruling was made by a division bench consisting of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev, who found that Chaudhary's detention violated her fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court criticized the authorities for failing to provide sufficient justification for invoking the stringent preventive detention law, stating that the material presented did not support the claims made against Chaudhary. The judges expressed concern that the manner in which the detention order was issued could lead to an environment reminiscent of an 'Orwellian Dystopia' in Uttar Pradesh if bureaucratic misconduct continues unchecked.
Chaudhary was detained alongside activist-journalist Satya Verma on May 13, 2026, during a protest advocating for higher wages for workers. The court noted that the police dossier against her lacked credible evidence and that there was no indication she had incited violence. The judges emphasized that the detention appeared to be a tactic to intimidate others from exercising their rights to free speech and assembly.
The court also highlighted discrepancies in the state's account of Chaudhary's arrest, noting that the official timeline presented was inconsistent with the evidence. The judges remarked that the notice issued under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was prepared after her arrest, undermining its legitimacy.
In their ruling, the judges reiterated that preventive detention should be an exception rather than a substitute for ordinary criminal law, cautioning against treating peaceful protests as threats based solely on the potential for unrest. They affirmed that the constitutional protections of freedom of speech and assembly must be upheld, and warned that officials who neglect their constitutional duties risk being viewed as oppressive remnants of colonial rule. The court's decision serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding civil liberties against arbitrary state actions.
