The Allahabad High Court has quashed the preventive detention of Delhi University history graduate Akriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act and ordered compensation of Rs 5 lakh 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 judgment while hearing Chaudhary’s habeas corpus petition, observing that the state’s case rested on a fabricated story. The court directed her immediate release if she is not required in connection with any other criminal matter, though her physical release remains subject to pending bail proceedings in related protest cases.
Scrutiny of Arrest and Preventive Detention Grounds
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. The Uttar Pradesh Police subsequently invoked the National Security Act against Chaudhary and social activist Satyam Verma on May 13. During the habeas corpus proceedings, the bench directed the state administration to demonstrate the substantive material used to justify invoking preventive detention measures against the activist.
The High Court specifically examined the statutory procedures preceding her detention. Counsel representing the state confirmed that Chaudhary was served an official notice under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The bench raised questions regarding whether the mandatory statutory procedures stipulated under Section 126 of the code had been fulfilled beforehand. The state acknowledged before the bench that no notice had been issued under Section 126 prior to invoking the subsequent legal measures against her.
Evaluation of Electronic and Video Evidence
At the time of her apprehension, local police authorities asserted that they possessed decisive electronic and video recordings linking Chaudhary to the unrest. In subsequent hearings, the High Court directed prosecutors to place the specific video evidence and supporting documentary material on record to substantiate claims of incitement.
Upon assessing the submissions, the court noted that the state relied on witness depositions but failed to produce definitive video footage showing Chaudhary inciting demonstrators to damage property or engage in violence. The bench examined whether any of the visual documentation proved that she provoked demonstrators to pelt stones or set public vehicles on fire, emphasizing the total absence of direct electronic records demonstrating the alleged incitement.
Legal Challenge Against Administrative Action
Chaudhary, who participated in the demonstration as a social activist, was represented before the High Court by senior advocate Colin Gonsalves alongside advocate Charlie Prakash. Her legal counsel submitted that she was not an organizer of the protest and had merely extended solidarity to the labor movement, rendering her detention under preventive detention provisions improper and disproportionate.
The ruling formally sets aside the preventive detention order that kept the history graduate in custody for nearly five months. The court observed that administrative decisions imposing preventive detention require strict adherence to procedural mandates and verifiable evidence. Chaudhary will nevertheless continue in custody if her detention remains legally necessary in pending criminal cases connected to the Noida agitation, with the detailed judicial order expected to outline all administrative shortcomings.
