The Allahabad High Court has criticized Gautam Buddha Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam for her handling of the National Security Act (NSA) detention of law student Akriti Chaudhary. In a detailed order released on September 7, 2026, the court noted that Ms. Roopam’s conduct was 'worthy of derision' for seeking to set an example out of a peaceful student activist. The court quashed the NSA detention of Ms. Chaudhary, who had been in custody for nearly five months, and ordered her immediate release unless she was required in another case. The court also directed that she be compensated ₹5 lakh, with the amount to be recovered from the salary of the district magistrate and other officers involved in the process.

The court highlighted discrepancies in the arrest notice and termed the State’s version of events a 'concocted story.' Ms. Chaudhary was among several activists arrested during a workers’ protest in Noida in April 2026, where industrial and contractual workers demanded a salary hike and parity with wages in Haryana. The protest turned violent on April 13, with roads blocked. The Uttar Pradesh police invoked the NSA against Ms. Chaudhary a month later, alleging she had instigated protesters to engage in stone-pelting and arson. During a press conference, the police claimed to have 'strong electronic and videographic evidence' against her.

In her petition, Ms. Chaudhary argued that she was already in custody before the violence broke out on April 13 and that there was no factual basis for her detention. The court noted that the police report against her contained only allegations without credible material. The bench emphasized that the District Magistrate was expected to examine the record thoroughly before invoking the NSA, which is an 'exception' and cannot be used merely to prevent someone from securing bail in an ordinary criminal case. The court also stressed that the exercise of such power directly affects the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and 'cannot be exercised lightly on the basis of surmises, biases, conjectures and opinions.'

The State had submitted that Ms. Chaudhary was arrested on April 12 and issued a warning notice under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. However, the court questioned why no show-cause notice was issued before the warning. The State admitted that no notice was served under Section 126, and the court called for the police’s general diary, which showed that Ms. Chaudhary was arrested before the notice was prepared. The court also asked whether she had been produced before a magistrate before the arrest and requested evidence of incitement. The State failed to submit the video footage showing Ms. Chaudhary provoking protesters to throw stones or set vehicles on fire.

The court also criticized what it described as bureaucratic overreach, stating that IAS and IPS officers must remember their loyalty is to the Constitution and not the political executive. The bench warned that officers who forget this risk reducing Uttar Pradesh to 'an Orwellian Dystopia.' The court emphasized that the State should train its police force to manage large gatherings and use videography to ensure accountability when violence occurs, rather than restricting peaceful protests on the assumption that they could lead to a breach of peace.