Supreme Court stays order quashing student’s NSA detention, penalising Noida DM

The Supreme Court Wednesday stayed the operation of the September 2 order of the Allahabad High Court which quashed the detention of Delhi University student Akriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act, passed strictures against Gautam Buddha Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam and directed that Rs 5 lakh be paid from her salary as compensation to Chaudhary.

Lodged in Kasna Jail, Chaudhary was arrested in connection with a protest by workers in Noida in April this year.

A bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice N K Singh stayed the High Court’s adverse remarks against Roopam including that her “conduct… is worthy of derision” and that she “is guilty of violating her oath of allegiance” to the Constitution.

The bench said, “After hearing learned Senior Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that till the matter is heard on merits, the operation of the impugned judgment, particularly para Nos. 27 to 33 shall remain stayed.” These paragraphs relate to the strictures against Roopam and the direction for the Rs 5-lakh compensation payment from her salary.

Earlier in the day, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Roopam, told the bench that the High Court passed strictures without hearing Roopam.

“Without notice to the DM, Noida, some strictures are passed and a cost of Rs 5 lakh is imposed,” he said. “Even on merits, the role of DM is completely different. This, in my respectful submission, was not called for.”

“It is one thing to quash the order of detention, quite another to castigate the officer who has passed the order,” Mehta said, adding that “there are several layers before the DM forms an opinion. There are several administrative, hierarchical layers.”

Story continues below this ad

Roughly 10 minutes into the submissions in the courtroom, the video was muted.

Appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi said the High Court order was “completely uncalled for”.

On the detention of Chaudhary under NSA, he said, “The HC should have independently assessed this order which is of May 12. It was to maintain public order, not law and order.”

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, who appeared for Chaudhary, said one of the conditions for her detention was that she instigated the mob, but that was not true as she was in police custody even before the violence erupted.

Story continues below this ad

He said the High Court had asked the state multiple times to produce Chaudhary’s alleged inflammatory speech but it did not. “Not one microgram of evidence, but 99 per cent flamboyant narrative was given,” he said.

The bench said the High Court only had to see if the procedure was followed and not go into the merits.

Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 26 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with the daily newspaper, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More