The Allahabad High Court has come down heavily on Gautam Buddha Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam, who had issued the order to detain a 25-year-old Delhi University law student under the National Security Act (NSA) over a workers’ protest in Noida in April this year. In a detailed order released on Monday (September 7, 2026), the court observed that Ms.
Roopam “desired to make an example” out of the petitioner.
Ms. The court directed that Ms. The State had submitted in the court that Ms. The court then called for the police’s general diary, which showed that Ms. The State also failed to submit the video footage showing Ms. Chaudhary provoking protesters to throw stones or set vehicles on fire.
A Bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev had on September 2 quashed the NSA detention of Akriti Chaudhary, who had spent nearly five months in custody. Chaudhary was among several activists arrested in connection with the protest held between April 10 and 18, during which industrial and contractual workers demanded a hike in salary and parity with wages paid in neighbouring Haryana. The protest had turned violent on April 13 and roads were blocked. Chaudhary was arrested at 10.56 a.m. on April 12 and was issued a warning notice under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The State accepted that no notice was served under Section 126. The State told the court that protesters gathered at the site on April 11, but the court pointed out that, according to police records, no violence took place that day.
Chaudhary be paid compensation of ₹5 lakh and that the amount be recovered from the salary of the District Magistrate, who passed the order of detention “without application of mind”, and “all such other officers who may have been responsible, right down to the Station House Officer” of the police station, who had prepared the initial report warranting the detention of the petitioner under the provisions of the NSA.
Justice Sreedharan questioned why no show-cause notice was issued before the warning. Chaudhary was arrested before the notice was prepared. The court asked whether she had been produced before a magistrate before the arrest and asked for evidence of incitement.
The Bench had allowed Ms. Chaudhary’s habeas corpus petition and ordered her immediate release, unless she was required in another case.
The court flagged discrepancies in the arrest notice and termed the State’s version a “concocted story”.
