SC’s revised order leaves quashing of Delhi University student’s NSA detention intact

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

A revised Supreme Court order preserves the Allahabad High Court decision to quash Noida District Magistrate Medha Roopam’s order to detain Delhi University student Akriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act.

An earlier version of the September 23 interim order of the top court, passed by a Bench headed by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, had directed an interim stay of the entire Allahabad High Court judgment of September 2. But the quietly updated one shows the freeze is restricted to only certain strictures passed in a few paragraphs against Ms. Roopam and award of costs of ₹5 lakh.

The hearing itself raised eyebrows when the video-conferencing facility fell mute throughout. Further, questions were asked about the “out-of-turn” listing of the appeals before Justice Sharma’s Bench.

The appeals were filed by Ms. Roopam and the State of Uttar Pradesh against a High Court judgment based on a habeas corpus petition.

The Supreme Court’s July 13 roster assigns cases dealing with habeas corpus and preventive detentions to the first four Benches headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice M.M. Sundresh. In fact, Justice Nagarathna’s Bench was already seized of petitions linked to the Noida workers’ protests. Ms. Chaudhary was detained in connection with these protests and the ensuing police crackdown in April 2026.

Lawyers Association for Constitution, an advocates’ group, has already issued an open letter to the Chief Justice of India, who is the ‘master of roster’ in the Supreme Court, alleging “out-of-turn listing” and “special assignment” of the case to a “particular Bench”.

“The matter is also significant as the petitioner [Medha Roopam], who is a public servant, also happens to be the daughter of the Chief Election Commissioner of India. The out-of-turn listing of the case has received special treatment and tends to set a wrong precedent,” the letter, circulated by Supreme Court advocate Subhash Chandran K.R. on instant messaging platform WhatsApp, said.

The revision in the September 23 order coincides with the public debate over the muting of the hearing and the listing of the case to a Bench other than the four led by the senior most judges of the top court.

The revised ambit of the top court stay would mean that the High Court’s narrative and observations about what happened to Ms. Chaudhary, culminating in her arrest and detention, remains intact.

The High Court had held that the detention order and continued incarceration was a violation of her right to life and dignity under Article 21. It had observed that the order was passed without any application of mind.

The High Court judgment, authored by Justice Atul Sreedharan, said not even a single message from Ms. Chaudhary’s WhatsApp chats reveal that she acted the part of the “agent provocateur” to conspire and incite the protestors to violence on April 13.

Justice Sreedharan reasoned that Ms. Chaudhary’s communication with other activists about larger police presence at the Noida protest site cannot be interpreted by the State as incitement for violence.

“At the most and at its worst, it is only calling for people to gather to protect the rights of the labourers and stand with them in solidarity against the unlawful and excessive use of the authority by the police,” the High Court had observed.

The High Court had also noted how her arrest details were “falsified” by the police. “Any detention under the NSA [National Security Act] 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,” Justice Sreedharan, heading a Division Bench comprising Justice Achal Sachdev, had observed.

The limited stay by the Supreme Court ensures that the High Court’s observations that “preventing people from gathering in public spaces or agitating their rights on the grounds of assumed breach of peace, would be throwing the baby out of the bathwater” remain unscathed.

The High Court had found it “patently unjust” that peaceful protestors get blamed when mischievous elements infiltrate the agitation and indulge in violence to sabotage the cause.

Continuing to hold the fort in the case are the High Court’s words of judicial advice and caution to the government to avert violence on the streets, like “every society has its own tensions and its share of disagreements with the government in the manner in which it functions. Allowing agitations is like the safety valve in a pressure cooker”.

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.