The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its order on the plea by Gautam Buddh Nagar district magistrate Medha Roopam challenging an Allahabad High Court order directing that ₹5 lakh in compensation awarded to a student detained under the National Security Act be recovered from her salary.
A bench of justices Satish Chandra Sharma and N Kotiswar Singh was hearing appeals filed by Roopam and the Uttar Pradesh government against the high court’s September 2 judgment quashing the detention of 25-year-old Delhi University history graduate Akriti Chaudhary in connection with the Noida workers’ protest in April.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for Roopam, challenged the high court’s strictures against the district magistrate, while senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi represented the state government. After hearing the parties, the bench allowed Chaudhary’s lawyer to file a response and said, “On interim orders, judgment reserved.”
Mehta told the court that the entire order was passed without issuing notice to Roopam and the high court passed strictures against her even when the fact remains that she is just one among the many officers involved in the issuance of the detention order. Mehta said the observations against her were uncalled for and it was open for the high court to set aside the detention order without castigating the officer.
{{/usCountry}}Mehta told the court that the entire order was passed without issuing notice to Roopam and the high court passed strictures against her even when the fact remains that she is just one among the many officers involved in the issuance of the detention order. Mehta said the observations against her were uncalled for and it was open for the high court to set aside the detention order without castigating the officer.
{{/usCountry}}Rohatgi told the court that the detainee was involved in fomenting trouble in a similar workers’ unrest in Manesar and came to Gautam Buddh Nagar when the agitation shifted there. He said that the arrest was on April 12 and the proposal for detention under NSA is moved by the station house officer of the local police station and is vetted by several officers in the chain of command till it reaches the DM.
“Even if the arrest is bad, what has she to do with the detention order. We are not on legality of arrest but this order must go,” Rohatgi said.
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, who was representing Chaudhary in court, justified the HC order, which found the detention to be based on a story “concocted” by the state and directed her immediate release.
The HC order had criticised the manner in which the detention order was passed and warned that continued “despotic” conduct by “errant” bureaucracy could reduce Uttar Pradesh to an Orwellian dystopia.
It also awarded ₹5 lakh compensation to Chaudhary and directed that the amount be recovered from the salary of the DM, who passed the detention order, as well as other officers responsible right down to the SHO.
The high court bench of justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdeva also directed that its displeasure with the DM and the police be recorded in their service records, making strong observations about the conduct of the district administration.
The court said Roopam’s conduct was “worthy of derision” and appeared to indicate an attempt to “set an example” out of Chaudhary, a student activist, to deter others from participating in protests.
Chaudhary was arrested in connection with cases arising from the Noida workers’ protest in April 2026, and the Uttar Pradesh Police subsequently invoked the NSA against her and activist-journalist Satya Verma on May 13.
However, the court stressed that bureaucrats must remember that their “loyalty is towards the constitution and not the political executive”. It further said that officers are servants who serve the people, who are “the masters in a democracy”.