The Allahabad High Court has quashed the National Security Act detention of student-activist Aakriti Chaudhary, who spent five months in custody after being accused of instigating violence at the Noida workers’ protest in April. The bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev called her arrest a “concocted story by the state” and directed her immediate release.
Chaudhary, a 25-year-old Delhi University graduate, was booked under the NSA alongside 65-year-old journalist and activist Satyam Verma by Uttar Pradesh Police. The charges alleged that she incited protesters to engage in arson and stone pelting during the April demonstrations.
The court’s examination revealed significant procedural contradictions in the state’s case. According to the general diary entry, Chaudhary was arrested on 12 April before the notice under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita was even prepared. No notice under Section 126, the legally required preliminary step, was ever issued. Justice Sreedharan noted that the BNSS procedure clearly mandates Section 126 before Section 130 can be invoked.
The timeline further undermined the state’s claims. The bench observed that no violence took place on 11 April when Chaudhary was present at the protest. The violence that the state attributed to her instigation occurred after her arrest.
When the court directed the state to produce video footage of Chaudhary instigating violence, the prosecution sought additional time. The court refused, pointing to the five months she had already spent in detention. The state was ultimately able to offer only witness statements and could produce no material evidence.
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing Chaudhary, told ThePrint that the court also directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay Rs 5 lakh in costs. The amount is to be recovered from the officials who approved the detention order.
The NSA permits preventive detention without formal charges for up to 12 months and is intended for genuine threats to national security and public order. The court held that invoking it in this case constituted a misuse of power and reaffirmed the constitutional importance of free speech and the right to speak against the governed.
Source: The Print
