The Allahabad High Court has set aside the preventive detention of Delhi University graduate and activist Aakriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act (NSA) in connection with the Noida workers’ protest, holding that the material placed before it was insufficient to establish her involvement in the alleged violence.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev allowed Chaudhary’s habeas corpus petition challenging her continued detention and directed that she be released forthwith, subject to her not being required in any other case.
The Court also directed the Noida administration to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation to Chaudhary. Reports on the proceedings indicate that the amount is to be recovered from the salaries of officials involved in the detention process, extending from the concerned Station House Officer to the District Magistrate.
The proceedings arose from the protests staged by industrial workers in Noida in April, during which large numbers of workers had gathered over demands concerning wages and working conditions. The demonstrations later witnessed incidents of violence, including alleged stone-pelting and damage to property. Several persons were arrested following the unrest.
Chaudhary was subsequently detained under the NSA after the State alleged that she had played a role in instigating protesters to engage in violent acts.
The principal issue before the High Court was whether there was credible material connecting Chaudhary personally with the acts of violence relied upon by the authorities to justify the extraordinary measure of preventive detention.
During the hearing, the Bench specifically questioned the State about the evidence purportedly establishing Chaudhary’s individual role. The Court sought to know whether there was material showing that she had called upon protesters to indulge in acts such as stone-pelting or setting vehicles on fire.
The State relied, among other things, upon statements of witnesses said to implicate Chaudhary. However, the Bench examined whether those allegations were corroborated by video footage of the protest and the alleged incidents.
The Court had reportedly asked the State to produce the video material relied upon by it. According to reports, the State was unable to place the material before the Court in the manner sought during the subsequent hearing.
The absence of substantive material linking Chaudhary to the alleged acts of violence assumed significance in the Court’s assessment of the detention order. The Bench ultimately found the State’s case against her legally unsustainable and quashed the preventive detention.
The Court’s intervention is particularly significant given the exceptional nature of preventive detention under the NSA, under which a person can be detained without a conventional criminal trial for preventive purposes when the statutory conditions are satisfied.
Chaudhary’s case, however, does not automatically result in her release from custody in all respects. Reports indicate that she continues to remain in jail because of other criminal cases registered in connection with the Noida protests, in which she is yet to obtain bail in some matters.
According to reports, she has already secured bail in several of the cases lodged against her, while other bail applications remain pending.
The High Court’s ruling nevertheless removes the NSA detention as a legal basis for her continued custody and places the State’s reliance on preventive detention under judicial scrutiny.
The compensation direction further underscores the Court’s concern regarding the manner in which the detention was effected. By directing monetary compensation, with the amount reportedly recoverable from the officials concerned, the Court has attached consequences to what it found to be an unjustified exercise of preventive detention powers.
The judgment thus brings into sharp focus the constitutional tension between maintaining public order and protecting individual liberty. While the State is empowered to take preventive measures in appropriate circumstances, the invocation of a stringent preventive-detention statute must rest on material capable of demonstrating the requisite nexus between the individual concerned and the threat sought to be prevented.
In Chaudhary’s case, the High Court found that the material relied upon by the authorities did not sufficiently establish such a nexus, resulting in the detention order being quashed and compensation being awarded.
The post Allahabad High Court quashes Aakriti Chaudhary’s NSA detention over Noida workers protest, orders ₹5 Lakh compensation appeared first on India Legal.