New Delhi, September 9, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Uttar Pradesh government will challenge the Allahabad High Court’s order quashing the National Security Act (NSA) detention of 24-year-old student activist Akriti Chaudhary and directing payment of Rs 5 lakh compensation, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
The submission was made before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant during a hearing concerning a show-cause notice issued by Greater Noida officials to a student of Gautam Buddha University in connection with a campaign related to a protest involving the CJI.
Solicitor General Mehta said the High Court judgment was being challenged before the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP).
The development comes days after a Division Bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev of the Allahabad High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by Chaudhary and quashed her detention under the NSA.
The High Court held that her continued incarceration under the stringent law was “violative of her rights under Article 21” and ordered her release if she was not wanted in any other case.
It also directed that Rs 5 lakh be paid to Chaudhary as compensation and recovered from the salary of the Gautam Buddha Nagar District Magistrate and other officials found responsible, “right down to the SHO of the Police Station” who had prepared the initial report supporting her detention.
The case arose from labour unrest in Gautam Buddha Nagar in April 2026, when workers protested over low wages, long working hours and inadequate pay. The state government alleged that Chaudhary had acted as an “agent provocateur” and that her activities and dissemination of information contributed to violence that erupted from April 13.
Chaudhary, however, argued that the proceedings were an attempt to suppress her freedom of speech and expression and that there was no material justifying her detention under the NSA.
The High Court observed that the alleged violence began only after Chaudhary had been taken into custody. It examined WhatsApp conversations and noted that the state government had failed to identify “a single message” or video clip showing that she had incited violence or revealed any conspiracy to provoke rioting, arson or destruction of property.
The court also noted that videos relied upon by the authorities showed people gathered peacefully and did not indicate that the crowd was armed or agitated.
“Any detention under the NSA is an exception. It is not a substitute to ensure that a person who may receive bail on account of merits of his case is still detained in custody under a concocted reasoning by the State,” the High Court said.
It further held that the grounds of detention were “repetitive, speculative and are only opinion-based” and lacked supporting material for the District Magistrate’s conclusions.
The court also questioned the timing of a notice issued under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), observing that it appeared to have been prepared after Chaudhary’s arrest and describing the procedure as “ex post facto the arrest and nothing more than a sham”.
On compensation, the High Court criticised the conduct of the Gautam Buddha Nagar District Magistrate, saying the officer was expected to carefully examine the material before invoking the NSA against a female student activist.
The court observed that the District Magistrate’s conduct was “worthy of derision” and held that the officer had “desired to set an example out of the Petitioner and deter others from exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression in public spaces in support of the labourers.”
It further said the District Magistrate was “guilty of violating his oath of allegiance” and held that the case warranted compensation.
The High Court also emphasised that peaceful agitation is protected by the Constitution. It likened allowing protests to a “safety valve in a pressure cooker”, saying protests can help release accumulated public grievances instead of allowing them to build up to a point where violence becomes inevitable.
The matter will now be examined by the Supreme Court after the Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to challenge the High Court judgment.
FOLLOW NOW
