Allahabad HC Quashes NSA Detention Of Law Student, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation

Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court has quashed the detention of a 24 year old law student, Akriti Chaudhary, under the National Security Act, 1980, holding that her continued incarceration violated her rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, and has directed the State to pay her Rs 5 lakh as compensation, to be recovered from the salary of the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar, and other responsible officers.

A Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of Akriti Chaudhary, a first year law student at Delhi University, who was arrested in connection with Case Crime No. 163 of 2026 on charges including offences under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932, and subsequently detained under the NSA.

The case arose out of widespread labour agitation in Gautam Buddha Nagar in April 2026 by workers protesting low wages, long working hours and inadequate pay, which allegedly turned violent from 13.04.2026, with vandalism, arson and torching of vehicles, including police vehicles. The State alleged that the petitioner was the agent provocateur behind the unrest, having conspired with associates in early April to foment violence in Manesar and later in NOIDA under the guise of labour unrest.

The petitioner's case was that she was actually taken into custody at 5.30 pm on 11.04.2026 from Botanical Garden Metro Station and moved between police stations overnight without any information to her family, and was only formally shown as arrested and produced before the Executive Magistrate on 12.04.2026, without ever being given an opportunity to furnish a bond for good conduct. The State, on the other hand, maintained that she was arrested only on 12.04.2026.

Examining WhatsApp records relied upon by the State itself, the court noted that messages sent to the petitioner by an associate from 17:56 hrs on 11.04.2026 onwards, including a missed call, went unanswered, indicating that she was already in custody by that time, thereby supporting her version and contradicting the State's claim that she was taken into custody only on 12.04.2026.

The Bench also examined a notice purportedly issued to the petitioner under Section 130 of the BNSS for a bond of Rs 50,000, and found that since it bore a printed reference to a General Diary entry that was itself generated only at 10.20 am on 12.04.2026, after her arrest, the notice could only have been prepared after the arrest and not before it, exposing the procedure followed as what the court called nothing more than a sham.

The court recorded that it had repeatedly asked counsel for the State to point to any message or video clip showing that the petitioner had incited rioting, arson or destruction of property, but that no such material could be shown. It noted that the violence in question had, on the State's own case, erupted only on 13.04.2026, well after the petitioner was already in custody, so that it could not have been triggered by any act of hers on that date.

Reviewing the video clips relied upon by the State, the court observed that they showed men and women gathered peacefully, without weapons or any sign of agitation, and appeared to reflect an exercise of the constitutional right to freedom of speech rather than any threat to public order.

Holding that detention under the NSA is an exception and cannot be used as a substitute where a person may otherwise be entitled to bail, the court observed that the grounds of detention recorded by the District Magistrate were repetitive, speculative and opinion based, without reference to material capable of sustaining them, and that the order had been passed without application of mind.

The Bench cautioned that peaceful agitation without arms could still be infiltrated by mischievous elements seeking to discredit a movement, and that responsibility for resulting violence could not automatically be attributed to organisers absent evidence of incitement, and observed that allowing lawful agitation functions as a safety valve for social tension, the suppression of which risks making eventual unrest harder to contain.

The court accordingly quashed the order of detention along with its grounds and directed that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in any other case. On the question of compensation, while noting the State's submission that her NSA detention would in any event merge with her ongoing judicial custody in the criminal case, where her bail application already stood rejected, the court held that the casual and cavalier exercise of authority by the District Magistrate warranted an award of Rs 5 lakh as compensation, to be recovered from the salaries of the District Magistrate and other officers found responsible, including the Station House Officer who prepared the initial dossier, with the court's displeasure to be noted in their service records.

In strong observations on the conduct expected of the bureaucracy, the court reminded officers of the IAS and IPS that their oath of allegiance runs to the Constitution and the people they serve, not to the political executive, and cautioned that the casual exercise of extraordinary powers such as those under the NSA, without adequate material, corrodes public trust and invites judicial censure.

The petition was accordingly disposed of as allowed.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Charlie Prakash, Mr. Manik Gupta and Mr. Rajvendra Singh, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Balram Govind Tripathi, holding brief for Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, for the Union of India; Mr. Nitesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

Case Title: Akriti Chaudhary (Detenue) vs. Union of India and 4 others, Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 960 of 2026