The Allahabad High Court has quashed the detention of 24-year-old student activist Akriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act (NSA), holding that her continued incarceration violated her fundamental rights under Article 21. The Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev also directed that ?5 lakh compensation be paid to Chaudhary, with the amount to be recovered from the salary of the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar, and other officers responsible for the detention.
The case arose from labour protests in Gautam Buddha Nagar in April 2026. The petitioner had been arrested and was subsequently detained under the NSA on allegations that she had conspired with others to foment violence among protesting labourers. The State relied, among other things, on WhatsApp conversations and videos to contend that she had incited people to join the agitation.
The Court, however, found that the material placed before it did not establish any such incitement. It noted that the violence had erupted on April 13, whereas the State itself claimed that the petitioner had been taken into custody on April 12. The Bench also examined WhatsApp messages and found that messages sent to her after 5:56 pm on April 11 went unanswered, which “probabilise[d] as true” her claim that she had already been taken into custody by then.
On the State’s inability to point to any specific message or video showing that she had incited violence, the Court remarked:
“
“This Court repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the State to point out from the WhatsApp chats and the video recordings as to which one of them incited people or disclosed a conspiracy inciting people to indulge in acts of rioting, arson and destruction of public and private property? The learned counsel for the State has not been able to show a single message from the WhatsApp chats between the Petitioner and her associates or any video clip which would reveal any incitement from the Petitioner, either evidently or by necessary implication…”
The Bench further held that the material relied upon by the District Magistrate consisted merely of allegations and opinions unsupported by credible material. It stressed that detention under the NSA is an exceptional measure and cannot be used as a substitute for keeping a person in custody merely because the person might otherwise obtain bail in an ordinary criminal case.
“
“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 elaborate grounds of detention of the District Magistrate are repetitive, speculative and are only opinion based without referring to a shred of evidence / material in support of sustaining those opinions.”
The Court also emphasised that the right to peaceful protest and collective expression is protected by the Constitution. It observed that merely calling upon people to gather peacefully in support of labourers could not, without more, be treated as an incitement to violence. The State, the Court said, must distinguish between peaceful agitation and violence perpetrated by individuals or “mischievous elements” who may seek to disrupt such protests.
In a strong observation concerning the District Magistrate, the Bench said his conduct was “worthy of derision”, holding that he had failed to examine whether there was credible material supporting the allegations and whether the extraordinary provisions of the NSA were warranted against a female student activist with no previous criminal record.
“
“the District Magistrate was expected to be vigilant and examine the record threadbare to determine if there was any material in support of the allegations and even thereafter, assess whether the oppressive provisions of the NSA were warranted against the Petitioner and how the general law of the land was inadequate against a female student activist without any previous criminal record, agitating for the rights of labourers and where the material on record did not disclose that she had in any way incited violence, reveals that the District Magistrate 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. The District Magistrate Gautam Buddha Nagar is guilty of violating her oath of allegiance, making this a fit case for the imposition of compensation to the petitioner.”
The Court ultimately held that the detention order had been passed without application of mind and quashed both the detention order and the grounds of detention. The petitioner was directed to be released forthwith if she was not wanted in any other case.
On compensation, the Court held that although Chaudhary would continue to remain in custody in the criminal cases unless granted bail, the State’s “casual and cavalier exercise of authority” had violated her constitutional rights. It therefore awarded her ?5 lakh, directing recovery of the amount from the salary of the Gautam Buddha Nagar District Magistrate and other officers responsible, including those involved up to the SHO who prepared the initial report. The Court further directed that its displeasure with the conduct of the concerned officials be recorded in their service records.
