The Allahabad High Court has delivered a strongly worded judgment quashing the detention of student activist Aakriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act (NSA), holding that the State's actions amounted to a grave infringement of constitutional liberties.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev observed that preventive detention under the NSA is an extraordinary measure and cannot be invoked on the basis of conjecture, assumptions, or unverified allegations. The Court found that the detention order lacked credible supporting material and reflected a complete non-application of mind by the authorities.
The case arose from Chaudhary's participation in demonstrations supporting workers demanding better wages and working conditions in Noida. Authorities alleged that her actions threatened public order and justified detention under the NSA. However, upon examining the record, the Court found no material indicating that she had incited violence or posed a genuine threat to public order.
In a scathing critique of the bureaucracy and law enforcement machinery, the Court warned that continued misuse of preventive detention laws by officials could reduce Uttar Pradesh to an “Orwellian dystopia.” The Bench emphasized that public officials owe their allegiance to the Constitution rather than the political executive and must exercise their powers in accordance with constitutional values.
The Court further reiterated that peaceful assembly and public protest are protected constitutional freedoms. It observed that citizens cannot be deprived of liberty merely because authorities subjectively apprehend a breach of peace without supporting evidence.
Holding that Chaudhary's detention violated her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court awarded compensation of ₹5 lakh. Significantly, it directed that the amount be recovered from the salaries of the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar, and other responsible officials involved in the detention process, including officers who prepared the supporting reports.
The judgment underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding civil liberties and ensuring accountability for arbitrary executive action. It also serves as an important reminder that preventive detention laws must remain exceptional tools and not become substitutes for ordinary criminal processes.