SC Reserves Order On Noida DM’s ₹5 Lakh Recovery Plea In NSA Case; VC Audio Muted During Hearing

The Bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and N.K. Singh heard the matter.

The Allahabad High Court had quashed Chaudhary’s detention and directed that ₹5 lakh be paid as compensation, with the amount to be recovered from the officers involved in the detention process, including the District Magistrate and the Station House Officer who had prepared the initial report.

'One thing to quash detention order, another to castigate officer': SG Mehta

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Medha Roopam, submitted that the High Court had imposed the ₹5 lakh liability on the District Magistrate without issuing notice to her. “I represent the DM, Noida. Without notice to her some strictures are passed and cost of 5 lakhs is imposed,” Mehta submitted.

He argued that quashing a detention order was distinct from imposing personal liability on the officer who had passed it. “It’s one thing to quash the order of detention and another to castigate the officer who has passed the order,” Mehta said. Mehta further pointed out that there were “several layers” and “administrative hierarchical levels” preceding the District Magistrate’s decision.

'She is just one person in the chain': Rohatgi

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, described the Allahabad High Court order as “completely uncalled for”.

Rohatgi submitted that the detention process involved multiple authorities, beginning with the police authorities and subsequently involving the District Magistrate, the NSA Advisory Board and the State and Central Governments.

“She is just one person in the chain,” Rohatgi submitted.

He argued that the proposal for detention under the NSA originated at the SHO level before reaching the District Magistrate for the final decision.

According to Rohatgi, the detainee had first been involved in protests in Manesar and the unrest subsequently shifted to Noida, where roads were allegedly blocked and incidents of arson and stone-pelting were reported.

State challenges High Court's reasoning on timing of detention

Rohatgi also challenged the High Court’s reasoning concerning the timing of Chaudhary’s arrest and the subsequent detention order. He submitted that the detention order was passed around one month after the arrest and contended that the High Court was required to independently assess the detention order.

Rohatgi referred to the High Court’s reasoning that Chaudhary was arrested on April 11 after she stopped responding to WhatsApp messages that evening. “The detention order was issued one month later. There’s complete misdirection of the law,” he submitted. He further argued that the detention order demonstrated application of mind. “I don’t think there can be better application of mind in the detention order,” Rohatgi said.

Supreme Court reserves order

During the hearing, the Bench also observed that the District Magistrate could not necessarily be isolated from the broader decision-making process if the detention order had passed through multiple statutory and administrative levels.

The Court subsequently muted the hearing before reserving its order on Roopam’s plea, including her challenge to the direction for recovery of ₹5 lakh from the officers’ salaries.

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.