UP To Challenge ₹5 Lakh Compensation Order From DM In Student's Detention Case

The Uttar Pradesh government told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that it would challenge an Allahabad High Court ruling awarding ₹5 lakh in compensation to law student Akriti Chaudhary after quashing her detention under the National Security Act (NSA).

The High Court directed that the compensation be recovered from Gautam Budh Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam and other officials found responsible for the detention. It also ordered that the court’s displeasure with their conduct be entered in their service records.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant about the state’s decision to appeal. He made the submission while clarifying that an executive magistrate—not the district magistrate—had issued a preventive notice to another law student, Akshat Tripathi.

The Supreme Court was examining the notice sent to Tripathi despite its September 1 order protecting students who participated in Cockroach Janta Party-led protests at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar.

Referring to the authority before whom Tripathi had reportedly been directed to appear, the CJI said the court would seek an explanation from the magistrate concerned—“executive or district or both”.

During the proceedings, the CJI also referred to the Allahabad High Court’s September 2 decision in Chaudhary’s case. Mehta then said the state government would contest the ruling. People aware of the matter said Roopam could also file a separate challenge, particularly against the direction imposing financial liability on her.

A bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdeva had strongly criticised the administration’s handling of Chaudhary’s detention. It described the district magistrate’s conduct as “worthy of derision” and said the authorities appeared intent on making an example of the student activist to discourage others from protesting.

The High Court found that a notice issued to Chaudhary under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, requiring her to furnish a bond for good behaviour, appeared to have been prepared after she was taken into custody.

Citing the general diary number recorded in the notice, the bench concluded that officials had prepared the document retrospectively. It called the process “ex post facto the arrest and nothing more than a sham” and said the state had failed to explain the “visible fabrication in the record”.

After examining WhatsApp messages, videos, case-diary entries and other material presented by the authorities, the court said it found no evidence that Chaudhary had incited rioting, arson or damage to public or private property.

The bench ruled that the state could not invoke preventive detention—an exceptional power affecting life and personal liberty under Article 21—on the basis of “surmises, biases, conjectures and opinions”.

It also criticised the deployment of administrative powers against peaceful demonstrators. The court said the government should instead equip police personnel to manage large gatherings and use videography to establish accountability when violence occurs.

The High Court reminded IAS and IPS officers that their allegiance lay with the Constitution, not the political executive. It warned that bureaucratic excesses could turn Uttar Pradesh into “an Orwellian Dystopia”.

The Supreme Court referred to that judgment while considering the preventive proceedings against Tripathi, a second-year student at Gautam Buddha University.

An executive magistrate issued Tripathi a notice on September 4, accusing him of spreading “anti-government propaganda” and persuading other students to join the CJP demonstrations. It asked him to explain why he should not furnish a personal bond of ₹5 lakh and two sureties of the same amount to maintain peace for six months.

Authorities withdrew the notice the next day after a police inquiry found the underlying information to be false. Tripathi was reportedly in Prayagraj during his semester break when the alleged activity on the university campus was said to have occurred. The Supreme Court sharply questioned the action, asking how the magistrate could disregard its earlier directions. The Indian Express reported.

On September 1, the Supreme Court used its powers under Article 142 to close criminal proceedings arising from the July CJP protests. It directed that FIRs registered between July 20 and 25 over the demonstrations be treated as closed and barred fresh cases concerning the same incidents.

The bench also held that participation in the protests could not, by itself, attract criminal liability. It separately kept open the cases of 2,837 people whom Delhi Police alleged had criminal antecedents and were prima facie present at the protest site.