Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has quashed the detention of 25-year-old Delhi University graduate Aakriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act (NSA) in connection with protests by workers in Noida, strongly criticising the manner in which the police and administration exercised their powers.
The court warned that arbitrary exercise of authority by the bureaucracy and police could gradually turn Uttar Pradesh into an “Orwellian Dystopia”, with serious consequences for civil liberties and the rule of law.
A bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev quashed Chaudhary’s detention on September 2. The detailed 15-page order was subsequently made available.
The bench raised serious concerns over the material compiled by the District Magistrate and police authorities and questioned whether it provided sufficient grounds for invoking preventive detention under the NSA.
Court Warns Against Arbitrary Exercise of State Power
The High Court observed that when public officials discharge their responsibilities in accordance with the Constitution and the oath they have taken, citizens are likely to hold them in high regard.
However, the court cautioned that officials who act contrary to constitutional responsibilities and suppress citizens’ rights risk being perceived as an oppressive remnant of the colonial system.
According to the bench, arbitrary state action can generate resentment and distrust among citizens and contribute to an atmosphere of civil unrest.
The court emphasised that police and administrative authorities must exercise their powers within constitutional boundaries and follow due process.
It further observed that when state action unlawfully infringes civil liberties, courts can intervene by quashing the action, placing the conduct of responsible officials on record and, where appropriate, awarding compensation to affected citizens.
Protest Videos Did Not Establish Violence
One of the key issues examined by the court was the material relied upon by the authorities to justify Chaudhary’s detention.
Police had reportedly relied on videos and photographs from the workers’ protest. The material showed a large gathering, including people in traditional rural clothing, while one person appeared to be addressing the crowd.
The bench, however, found the material insufficient to establish violent activity.
According to the court, the videos did not show the crowd in an agitated state or participants carrying lathis, stones or other objects that could indicate an imminent threat of violence.
Instead, the material appeared to show people participating in a protest and raising demands concerning wages and working conditions.
The court stressed that the mere presence of a large crowd at a demonstration cannot automatically be treated as evidence of violence or a threat to public order.
For preventive detention under a stringent law such as the NSA, the authorities must have credible and substantial material connecting the individual to the alleged threat.
15 FIRs Registered After Noida Workers’ Protest
The police action followed incidents of violence associated with the workers’ protests. According to the information presented before the court, 15 FIRs were registered and hundreds of people were booked in connection with the incidents, with at least 60 people reportedly sent to jail.
Those booked reportedly included people from different backgrounds, including workers, students and private-sector employees.
Against this backdrop, the High Court examined whether the material specifically relied upon against Chaudhary was sufficient to justify the extraordinary measure of preventive detention.
The court’s intervention focused on the legal basis for her individual detention rather than treating participation in a protest or presence at a large gathering as sufficient grounds in itself.
Officials’ Conduct Ordered to Be Recorded
The bench also expressed strong displeasure over the manner in which the District Magistrate of Gautam Buddha Nagar and police officials involved in preparing the detention dossier exercised their authority.
The court reportedly characterised the State’s exercise of power as casual and cavalier and held that the petitioner’s constitutional rights had been violated.
It directed that the conduct of the concerned officials be recorded in their service records.
The court also awarded ₹5 lakh in compensation to Chaudhary, taking into account the infringement of her fundamental rights and the harm caused to her.
Proposal for Conducting Cyber Crisis Drill, Tabletop Exercise (TTEx) & CCMP Readiness Exercise
Court Reaffirms Limits on Preventive Detention
The ruling reinforces the distinction between maintaining public order and imposing preventive detention.
The NSA gives authorities significant powers in cases involving threats to national security and public order, but the High Court’s ruling underscores that such powers cannot be invoked casually or on the basis of inadequate material.
The judgment also highlights the importance of establishing a clear connection between the individual being detained and the threat that authorities claim requires preventive detention.
For citizens exercising constitutional rights through demonstrations, the ruling serves as a reminder that participation in a protest or presence within a large gathering does not, by itself, establish violent conduct or justify severe state action.
The High Court’s observations place the responsibility on police and administrative authorities to ensure that restrictions on liberty are supported by credible evidence, constitutional safeguards and lawful procedure.
The ruling also makes clear that when executive action crosses those limits, courts can intervene not only to set aside the detention but, in appropriate circumstances, to hold the conduct of officials accountable and provide relief to the affected citizen.
Follow the Centre for Police Technology on LinkedIn to stay updated on the latest developments in policing, cybersecurity, digital forensics, investigations, fraud risk management, and technology-driven public safety.
Centre for Police Technology on LinkedIn
About the author — Ananya Aradhya writes on cybercrime, fraud, scams, cybersecurity, digital safety, and emerging threats. Her work also covers major criminal cases, financial frauds, consumer scams, and stories that highlight risks affecting people in the real and digital world.
