‘Freedom of Speech Extends to Coming Out on Streets And Agitate a Cause Peacefully’: Allahabad High Court

The freedom of speech and expression extends to coming out on the streets and peacefully agitating a cause, the Allahabad High Court has held, while quashing the National Security Act (NSA) detention of a 24-year-old student in connection with workers' protest in Gautam Buddha Nagar in April this year.

A division bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev said that citizens have a constitutional right to gather peacefully and agitate for their rights, and that this right cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of the State’s “subjective opinion” about a possible breach of peace.

“Preventing people from gathering in public spaces or agitating their rights on the grounds of assumed breach of peace, would be throwing the baby out of the bath water,” Justice Atul Sreedharan, who authored the judgment, observed.

Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Akriti Chaudhary, who had been detained under the NSA after her arrest in connection with violence during labour protests in Gautam Buddha Nagar. Court found that the material relied upon by the State did not establish that Chaudhary had incited violence or was responsible for the subsequent rioting.

The protests arose amid agitation by thousands of labourers over low wages, long working hours and the absence of salary increases for several years. According to the judgment, the workers were earning between Rs 10,000 and Rs 15,000 and had complained that their wages were inadequate to lead a dignified life amid rising prices.

The State alleged that Chaudhary and her associates had commenced agitation and incitement to violence and subsequently shifted their focus to Noida, where they allegedly conspired to foment violence. Chaudhary, however, argued that the proceedings under the NSA were an attempt to stifle her freedom of speech and expression.

Court noted that the State itself did not dispute that Chaudhary was taken into custody before the violence erupted on April 13, 2026. It also examined WhatsApp conversations and video recordings relied upon by the State.

The bench repeatedly asked the State to identify material showing that Chaudhary had incited people to indulge in rioting, arson or destruction of public and private property. But, the court said, the State was unable to point to “a single message” or video clip showing such incitement.

The videos relied upon by the State, court said, showed large numbers of people gathered near a lamp post, including men and women in traditional rural clothing. “None of these videos disclose that the crowd is agitated or armed with lathi, stones or any such articles,” it said, adding that the gathering appeared to be an exercise of the constitutional right to freedom of speech and a protest against wages and working conditions.

Court said detention under the NSA was an exception and could not be used as a substitute to keep a person in custody merely because the person might otherwise obtain bail on the merits of the criminal case.

The grounds of detention in Chaudhary’s case, it held, were “repetitive, speculative and are only opinion based” and lacked supporting material. Court stressed that allegations forming the basis of subjective satisfaction by a detaining authority must be supported by material, particularly when the exercise of such power directly affects a person’s Article 21 rights.

The bench also cautioned that peaceful agitations could be disrupted by “mischievous elements”, whose acts of violence might subsequently be attributed to the entire gathering. The State, it said, had a responsibility to maintain public order while also ensuring that peaceful gatherings were not unnecessarily suppressed.

“The Constitution protects such a right and the same cannot be trifled with merely on the subjective opinion of the State,” court said.

Court further observed that allowing agitations serves as a “safety valve” for societal tensions and disagreements with the government. Preventing such expressions, it said, could result in pressure building up to a point where violence becomes harder for law enforcement agencies to control.

The bench allowed Chaudhary’s petition and held that her continued incarceration under the NSA violated Article 21. It quashed the detention order and grounds of detention, directing that she be released forthwith if she was not wanted in any other case.

court also ordered Rs 5 lakh compensation for Chaudhary, directing that the amount be recovered from the salary of the Gautam Buddha Nagar District Magistrate and other officials found responsible for the detention proceedings.

Case title: Akriti Chaudhary v. Union of India and 4 Others

Judgment date: September 2, 2026

Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev