UP to Challenge HC Order Quashing Aakriti Chaudhary’s NSA Detention

The Uttar Pradesh government has decided to challenge before the Supreme Court an Allahabad High Court order that quashed the National Security Act detention of Delhi University graduate and student activist Aakriti Chaudhary. The High Court had also directed the state to pay her Rs 5 lakh as compensation, with the amount to be recovered from the salaries of the officials responsible for the detention order. The development marks the next stage in a case that has raised significant questions about the use of preventive detention powers.

Background of the Detention

Aakriti Chaudhary, a history graduate from Delhi University, was arrested in connection with a workers’ protest in Noida in April 2026. The protests by industrial workers and labourers sought higher wages and better conditions. While the demonstrations began peacefully, they later saw incidents of violence, damage to public property and injuries to police personnel and others.

Police registered multiple cases related to the unrest. Chaudhary was among those arrested. On May 13, the Uttar Pradesh authorities invoked the National Security Act against her and at least one other activist. The NSA is a preventive detention law that allows the government to detain a person if it is satisfied that such action is necessary to prevent them from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order or national security.

Chaudhary challenged her detention through a habeas corpus petition in the Allahabad High Court.

The High Court Ruling

On September 2, 2026, a division bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev set aside the detention order. The court held that the continued incarceration of Chaudhary under the NSA violated her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. It found that the detention order and the grounds supplied for it were devoid of material that could justify the use of the stringent law and had been passed without proper application of mind.

The bench described the state’s account as a “concocted story” and criticised the manner in which the detention was ordered. It observed that the District Magistrate was expected to carefully examine the material before resorting to the “oppressive provisions” of the NSA. The court also made strong remarks about the conduct of the administration, warning that continued “despotic” behaviour by errant officials could reduce the state to an “Orwellian dystopia.”

In addition to quashing the detention, the High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay Chaudhary Rs 5 lakh as compensation. It ordered that this amount be recovered from the salary of Gautam Buddh Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam, who had passed the detention order, and from other officers found responsible, including the Station House Officer who prepared the initial report.

The court directed that Chaudhary be released if she was not required in any other case. Reports indicate that she continues to remain in custody in connection with the criminal cases arising from the protest, as her bail applications in those matters have not been granted.

State Government’s Decision to Appeal

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant that the Uttar Pradesh government would challenge the High Court order. The statement was made during proceedings in the apex court. The challenge is expected to cover both the quashing of the NSA detention and the direction for compensation, including the order for recovery from the salaries of the officers concerned.

The decision to appeal takes the dispute over the legality of the preventive detention, the High Court’s findings on the quality of the material relied upon, and the personal liability of officers to the highest court.

Legal and Constitutional Issues Involved

Preventive detention under the National Security Act is an extraordinary power. Courts have repeatedly held that it must be exercised with caution and only on the basis of material that reasonably supports the satisfaction of the detaining authority. The High Court’s ruling turned on its conclusion that such material was lacking in this case and that the order suffered from non-application of mind.

The direction to recover compensation from the salaries of specific officers is significant. It seeks to fix personal accountability for what the court regarded as an unlawful exercise of power. Such orders are relatively uncommon and are intended to deter casual or excessive use of stringent laws.

The state’s decision to challenge the ruling indicates that it contests both the factual findings and the legal conclusions of the High Court, as well as the propriety of the compensation and recovery directions.

Broader Context of the Noida Protests

The April 2026 protests in Noida and Greater Noida involved large numbers of industrial workers demanding better wages. The unrest led to multiple FIRs, arrests and the invocation of the NSA against some individuals. The High Court’s order focused specifically on the preventive detention of Chaudhary and did not decide the criminal cases pending against her or others.

The case has drawn attention to the balance between maintaining public order and protecting individual liberty, particularly when student activists or those associated with labour issues are detained under special laws.

What Lies Ahead

The Uttar Pradesh government’s appeal will place before the Supreme Court questions about the scope of judicial review of NSA detention orders, the standards for awarding compensation in such cases, and the circumstances in which costs or compensation may be recovered from individual officers.

Until the apex court decides the matter, the High Court’s order quashing the detention stands. Chaudhary’s continued custody, if any, would rest on the regular criminal cases rather than the preventive detention order that has been set aside.

The episode underscores the high stakes involved when authorities resort to preventive detention. It also highlights the role of constitutional courts in scrutinising such decisions and, where they find serious deficiencies, in providing both release and monetary relief to the affected individual. The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling will provide further clarity on these issues.

Read more – simplemarathiukhane.com