NSA Detention Quashed, But Aakriti Chaudhary Remains In Jail
For Delhi University graduate and activist Aakriti Chaudhary, Wednesday’s judgment by the Allahabad High Court represents both a major legal victory and an uncertain path to freedom
The Allahabad High Court has quashed the National Security Act (NSA) detention of 25-year-old Delhi University graduate and activist Aakriti Chaudhary, describing the State’s case against her as a “concocted story”. The ruling, delivered on Wednesday, September 2, marks a significant legal victory for Chaudhary, who has spent nearly five months in custody following the Noida workers’ agitation.
However, the order may not immediately result in her release. Chaudhary remains an accused in 11 FIRs and has secured bail in only five of those cases. The court directed that she be released immediately only if she was not required in connection with any other case.
The division bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev also ordered the State to pay Chaudhary Rs 5 lakh in compensation. Significantly, the court directed that the amount be recovered from the salaries of officials involved in the detention process, extending from the station house officer to the district magistrate.
The district magistrate referred to in the order is Medha Roopam, a 2014-batch IAS officer who became Gautam Buddh Nagar’s first woman district magistrate in July 2025. Roopam is the daughter of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, a connection that had previously attracted political attention during the Noida workers’ protests.
The High Court examined the circumstances surrounding Chaudhary’s arrest and the subsequent invocation of the NSA. The State had alleged that she had instigated workers to engage in arson and stone-pelting during violence that broke out on 13 April.
The bench, however, questioned the evidence supporting the allegation and sought material, including video footage, that could establish that Chaudhary had actually incited the mob. The court ultimately characterised the State’s version of events as a “concocted story”, raising serious questions about the basis for her preventive detention.
The bench also pointed to apparent inconsistencies in the chronology of Chaudhary’s arrest. According to the government’s account, she was arrested at 10.56 am on April 12 and the required notice under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was subsequently issued.
The court examined the general diary entry and questioned whether Chaudhary may have already been arrested before the notice was prepared. This raised concerns about whether the prescribed legal procedure had been properly followed.
Chaudhary was arrested in cases linked to an agitation by thousands of industrial workers in Noida, who had been demanding higher wages and improved working conditions. The protests escalated on April 13, with incidents of stone-pelting, vandalism and arson reported in parts of the industrial belt.
Police subsequently alleged that the violence had been instigated and accused Chaudhary and activist-journalist Satyam Verma of playing a role in the unrest. The NSA was invoked against both in May.
For Chaudhary, Wednesday’s judgment therefore represents both a major legal victory and an uncertain path to freedom. The court has struck down the preventive detention that kept her incarcerated for months, rejected the State’s account as “concocted” and awarded her Rs 5 lakh in compensation.
Yet the quashing of the NSA detention does not automatically resolve the criminal cases against her. Unless she obtains bail in the remaining six FIRs, she could continue to remain in custody despite the High Court having found her preventive detention unsustainable.
The judgment has also placed the local administration under considerable scrutiny. By ordering compensation to be recovered from the salaries of officials involved in the detention process, the court has imposed a direct financial consequence on the administrative chain that led to Chaudhary’s detention.
The case thus raises broader questions about the use of preventive detention laws, the evidentiary basis required to invoke extraordinary powers such as the NSA, and the safeguards that must accompany the deprivation of personal liberty.
