SC stays Allahabad HC’s ₹5 lakh recovery order against Noida DM in student’s NSA detention case

The Allahabad HC had quashed Akriti Chaudhary’s NSA detention, calling the state’s case “concocted”. Medha Roopam and UP govt challenged the ruling in SC.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed an Allahabad high court order directing that ₹5 lakh compensation be recovered from the salaries of Gautam Budh Nagar district magistrate Medha Roopam and other officials over student activist Akriti Chaudhary’s detention under the National Security Act (NSA) during the Noida workers’ protest in April.

SC stays Allahabad HC order

Akriti Chaudhary was detained under the stringent National Security Act (NSA) and the order of detention was passed by Noida DM Medha Roopam. (X/@MedhaRoopam)

A bench of justices Satish Chandra Sharma and N Kotiswar Singh issued notice on appeals filed by the Uttar Pradesh government and Roopam and said, “After hearing the senior counsels for the parties, this court is of the opinion that till the matter is heard on merits, the operation of the impugned judgment, particularly paras 27 to 33, shall remain stayed.”

The court allowed Chaudhary to respond to the petitions and posted the matter for further hearing on October 7. The order also stayed the high court’s strictures against Roopam and other officials for the detention order.

Why Roopam, UP government challenged HC ruling

The high court called Roopam’s conduct “worthy of derision” and said it appeared to indicate an attempt to “set an example” out of Chaudhary to deter others from protesting. It directed payment of ₹5 lakh compensation to her, to be recovered from the salaries of the DM, who passed the detention order, and other responsible officers, down to the SHO.

What was argued before Supreme Court

In the Supreme Court, Roopam was represented by solicitor general Tushar Mehta, while senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the state.

Mehta told the court that the entire order was passed without issuing notice to the DM. He said she was one of several officers involved in issuing the detention order. The observations were uncalled for, he argued, and the high court could have set aside the detention order without castigating the officer.

The high court stressed that bureaucrats must remember that their “loyalty is towards the constitution and not the political executive”.