Context
-
- The Allahabad High Court has quashed the preventive detention of 25-year-old Delhi University graduate Aakriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980. She had been in custody for nearly five months in connection with the April 2026 Noida industrial workers’ protests. A Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev termed the State’s version a “concocted story” and ordered her release if her arrest was not required in any other case. The Court also directed ₹5 lakh compensation.
Background of the Case
-
- Workers in Noida had protested on April 10–13, 2026, demanding better wages and parity with workers in neighbouring Haryana.
- On April 13, the protest allegedly turned violent, involving stone-pelting, arson and road blockades.
- Police alleged that Chaudhary had instigated protesters to engage in violence and subsequently invoked the NSA against her.
- However, the High Court questioned whether there was credible evidence connecting her with the alleged violence.
Why did the Court Quash the Detention?
-
- Procedural irregularities: The Court examined the sequence of arrest and notices issued under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
- The State admitted that a notice under Section 126 BNSS had not been served, while a Section 130 notice was issued.
- The Court also found discrepancies between the General Diary entry and the State’s version regarding whether the notice was prepared before or after her arrest.
- Lack of corroborative evidence: Despite police claims of “strong electronic and videographic evidence”, the State could not produce convincing footage showing Chaudhary instigating stone-pelting or arson.
- The Court also questioned reliance on witness statements when the chargesheet had already been filed but clear supporting evidence was lacking.
Constitutional & Legal Significance
1. Preventive detention is an exceptional power
-
- The NSA, 1980 permits preventive detention to prevent acts prejudicial to national security, public order and essential services.
- It is preventive, not punitive—the objective is to prevent anticipated harmful conduct rather than punish a crime already proved.
2. Article 22 safeguards
-
- Article 22 provides constitutional safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention.
- Preventive detention is an exception, but the Constitution still requires procedural safeguards, including review by an Advisory Board for continued detention beyond the prescribed period.
3. Rule of law
-
- The case highlights that extraordinary powers cannot substitute for ordinary criminal investigation and evidence.
- Mere association with a protest cannot automatically establish individual criminal liability.
Conclusion
The judgment reflects the delicate balance between public order and individual liberty. While the State has legitimate powers to control violent protests, invocation of preventive detention must satisfy legality, necessity, proportionality and procedural fairness.
Spread the Word