Supreme Court reserved order on DM Medha Roopam’s plea against salary recovery.
Allahabad HC had ordered ₹5 lakh compensation recovery over NSA detention.
UP government defended the detention process, citing multi-level approval.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its order on a plea filed by Gautam Buddh Nagar District Magistrate (DM) Medha Roopam challenging an Allahabad High Court direction that required recovery of ₹5 lakh compensation from her salary in a case involving the detention of Delhi University graduate Akriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act (NSA).
A bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and N Kotiswar Singh was hearing appeals filed by Roopam and the Uttar Pradesh government against the Allahabad High Court’s September 2 order that quashed Chaudhary’s NSA detention in connection with the Noida workers’ protest in April 2026.
Notably, the bench had muted the audio of the VC proceedings during the hearing, blocking media access (reporters cannot physically enter the Supreme Court), Live Law reported.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court questioned the basis for imposing the financial liability solely on the district magistrate when the detention process involved multiple levels of scrutiny.
“We can't isolate her... as fine of Rs 5 lakh,” the bench orally observed.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Roopam, argued that the DM was only one part of a five-stage process and had acted after considering material placed before her. He challenged the High Court’s remarks against Roopam and the direction to recover the compensation amount from her salary.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, defended the detention order, arguing that authorities had relied on material, including WhatsApp exchanges recovered from a mobile phone, to allege Chaudhary’s involvement in inflammatory activities.
Rohatgi said the detention proposal under the NSA was initiated by the local police station and examined by multiple officers before reaching the DM.
“Even if the arrest is bad, what has she to do with the detention order. We are not on legality of arrest but this order must go,” Rohatgi said.
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for Chaudhary, defended the High Court’s decision, which had described the detention as based on a “concocted” story by the state and ordered her release.
The Allahabad High Court had also directed that ₹5 lakh compensation awarded to Chaudhary be recovered from the salaries of officials involved in the detention process, including the DM and other officers.
The High Court had criticised the manner in which the detention order was passed, saying Roopam’s conduct was “worthy of derision” and appeared to be an attempt to “set an example” out of Chaudhary, a student activist, to discourage others from participating in protests.
It had also observed that bureaucrats must remember that their “loyalty is towards the constitution and not the political executive” and that government officials serve citizens, who are “the masters in a democracy”.
After hearing all sides, the Supreme Court allowed Chaudhary’s counsel to file a response and reserved its order.
