The Allahabad High Court has ordered the recovery of Rs 5 lakh from the salaries of the Gautam Buddha Nagar district magistrate and other officials after quashing the National Security Act (NSA) detention of Delhi University student and activist Akriti Chaudhary. The division bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev held that Chaudhary's detention violated her fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, finding that the material relied upon by authorities did not justify invoking the stringent preventive detention law.

Chaudhary, a 24-year-old history graduate, was arrested in connection with cases arising from a workers' protest in Noida in April 2026. The UP Police invoked the NSA against her and activist-journalist Satya Verma on May 13. They were among activists arrested in cases related to the protest seeking higher wages. The court said the police dossier against Chaudhary contained allegations but lacked credible supporting material. It said the DM was required to independently examine the record before deciding whether preventive detention was warranted.

The court also questioned the state's version of when Chaudhary was arrested. It recorded that she was taken into custody around 5.30 pm on April 11 at Botanical Garden Metro Station, although the state claimed her arrest took place on April 12. A notice issued under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was cited by the state. However, the notice carried General Diary Entry No. 37, which was generated only at 10.20 am on April 12. Justice Sreedharan noted that mentioning the GD number in the notice under section 130 of the BNSS revealed that the petitioner was already arrested and the procedure of giving a notice under section 130 of the BNSS was ex post facto the arrest and nothing more than a sham.

The court said preventive detention under the NSA is an exception and cannot be used in place of ordinary criminal law. It described the grounds of Chaudhary's detention as 'repetitive, speculative and are only opinion-based', noting the absence of material supporting those conclusions. It also cautioned authorities against treating peaceful public protests as a threat merely because they could potentially lead to a breach of peace. The bench said the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and expression extends to peaceful gatherings and collective action, and cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of the state's subjective assessment.

The court also reminded bureaucrats and police officers that their duty is to the Constitution rather than the political executive, saying that people are the masters in a democracy. It warned that officials who disregard their constitutional oath could come to be seen as an 'oppressive vestige of the British Empire', creating an environment of civil unrest. The court said the judiciary could pass 'harsh orders' to compensate citizens where official excesses or illegalities infringe upon civil liberties without adequate cause or due process.