Supreme Court stayed the Allahabad High Court's direction to recover ₹5 lakh compensation from Noida DM Medha Roopam's salary in the Akriti Chaudhary NSA detention case, issuing notice and listing the matter for October 7

The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the operation of the Allahabad High Court's order directing that ₹5 lakh compensation for the National Security Act detention of student-activist Akriti Chaudhary be recovered from the salary of Gautam Buddh Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam, while issuing notice on her plea challenging the High Court's findings against her.

The Bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh granted the interim protection after hearing Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for the DM, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves for Chaudhary, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared in a connected Special Leave Petition filed by the Uttar Pradesh government against the same High Court order.

The plea arises out of the Allahabad High Court's judgment of September 2, in which a Division Bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev quashed Chaudhary's NSA detention on a habeas corpus petition. Chaudhary, a 25-year-old Delhi University history graduate, had been detained under the NSA in connection with an industrial workers' protest in Noida in April.

The High Court did not stop at quashing the detention. It directed that ₹5 lakh be paid to Chaudhary as compensation, and ordered that the amount be recovered from the salary of the officers it held responsible — starting with DM Medha Roopam, who had passed the detention order, and running down to the police officer who prepared the initial report. Reports at the time recorded the High Court describing the DM's conduct as reflecting a desire to make an example of Chaudhary and deter others from supporting the protesting workers, and holding that she had acted without application of mind.

Interim relief on the recovery direction 

Before the Supreme Court, both the DM's counsel and the Solicitor General pressed for interim protection against the personal financial consequences of the High Court's order while the matter is heard on merits. Recording its view after hearing all sides, the Bench's order reads: "After hearing learned Senior Counsels for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that till the matter is heard on merits, the operation of the impugned judgment, particularly, para Nos. 27 to 33 shall remain stayed."

Paragraphs 27 to 33 of the High Court's judgment are understood to carry the strictures against the DM and the direction fixing personal liability for the compensation amount. The identical order was passed in the State government's connected petition. Notice issued, replies due in two weeks, matter to return October 7.

Notice issued, matter to return in two weeks 

The Court granted the DM permission to file her Special Leave Petition and issued notice to the respondents. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing on caveat for Chaudhary, accepted notice on her behalf in open court. Notice was ordered to be issued separately to respondent Nos. 2 to 6, with the petitioner directed to serve respondent Nos. 2 and 3 through their standing counsels in addition to ordinary service.

Although Gonsalves had already filed a compilation of documents for Chaudhary, the Court granted him, as prayed, two weeks to file a formal reply. The other respondents were given the same two weeks. Both the DM's plea and the State's connected Special Leave Petition; arising from the same High Court judgment, have been listed together for further hearing on October 7, 2026.

Background: the Noida protest and the NSA detention 

She had moved the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court's order reprimanding her over the detention of Delhi University graduate Akriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act (NSA).

The development came 4 days after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana that the High Court ruling would be challenged before the Supreme Court.

The Allahabad High Court had recently quashed Chaudhary's detention under the NSA in connection with the Noida workers' protest in April 2026, during which demonstrations had turned violent. A Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev had directed that Chaudhary be released forthwith, unless required in any other case.

The Court had also directed payment of ₹5 lakh compensation to Chaudhary, with the amount to be recovered from the salary of the District Magistrate and all officers responsible for preparing the report that led to her detention under the NSA. The High Court had passed the order after questioning the material relied upon by the State to attribute a specific role to Chaudhary in the violence.

The Court had also made strong observations concerning the responsibilities of IAS and IPS officers, observing that their loyalty is towards the Constitution and not the political executive. It was further observed that every time bureaucrats and police officers ignore their oath and allegiance to India, people may view them as an oppressive vestige of the British Empire. The Court warned that failure to act against excesses by bureaucrats could reduce the State to an “Orwellian Dystopia.”

The division bench had also said that the freedom of speech and expression extends to coming out on the streets and peacefully agitating a cause. It added 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.

Why was Chaudhary detained?

Chaudhary is a History graduate from Delhi University. She was arrested in connection with cases arising from the workers' protest in Noida in April 2026 and was subsequently detained under the NSA.

The Uttar Pradesh government invoked the NSA against Chaudhary and journalist Satyam Verma on May 13. They were among seven activists arrested in connection with different cases arising from the protest. At the time, Gautam Buddh Nagar Police Commissioner Laxmi Singh had claimed that the police possessed “strong electronic and videographic evidence” against Chaudhary, Verma and several others arrested in connection with the cases.

The habeas corpus proceedings before the High Court concerned the legality of Chaudhary's continued detention under the NSA.

Noida workers' protest

The protest in Noida was held by workers in April 2026 over demands concerning employment and labour-related issues. The demonstrations later turned violent, with incidents of stone-pelting and damage to vehicles reported during clashes. The police subsequently registered multiple cases against protesters and others allegedly involved in the violence.

Chaudhary's detention under the NSA stemmed from the State government's allegations that she had played a role in instigating protesters during the demonstrations. The High Court, however, found the detention unsustainable and quashed the NSA order.

Case Title: Medha Roopam v. Akriti Chaudhary

Bench: Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and NK Singh

Hearing Date: September 23, 2026

Tags: