The Allahabad High Court didn’t mince words this week, delivering a scathing rebuke to a district magistrate who detained a 25-year-old law student under the National Security Act. In a ruling that crackles with judicial frustration, the court called out Gautam Buddha Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam for what it described as conduct “worthy of derision.”

Key facts

  • Akriti Chaudhary, a Delhi University law student, was detained under NSA for nearly five months.
  • The detention followed a workers' protest in Noida in April 2026.
  • The court ordered her immediate release and ₹5 lakh compensation, to be recovered from the DM's salary.

A Flawed Process

Akriti Chaudhary was among several activists arrested during protests between April 10 and 18, where industrial workers demanded better wages. The situation turned violent on April 13, but Chaudhary argued—and the court agreed—that she was already in custody before the violence erupted. Police claimed they had “strong electronic and videographic evidence” against her, yet failed to produce it in court.

Judicial Pushback

The Bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev didn’t just quash the detention; they dismantled the state’s case piece by piece. They noted glaring discrepancies in the arrest notice, called the state’s version a “concocted story,” and questioned why no show-cause notice was issued before Chaudhary’s warning. The court found that she was arrested before the notice was even prepared—a procedural misstep that undermined the entire process.

“In this case, the conduct of the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar, who passed the impugned order, is worthy of derision.”

Broader Implications

Beyond the immediate injustice, the court saw something more troubling: an attempt to “set an example” out of Chaudhary and deter others from exercising free speech. The judges noted that the DM failed to examine whether the NSA’s “oppressive provisions” were warranted against a student with no criminal record. They directed that the ₹5 lakh compensation be recovered not just from the DM, but from all officers involved—right down to the station house officer.

The ruling serves as a sharp reminder that power must be exercised with care, not carelessness.