The Supreme Court has reserved its order on a plea by Gautam Buddh Nagar district magistrate Medha Roopam challenging an Allahabad High Court directive to recover ₹5 lakh in compensation from her salary, awarded to Akriti Chaudhary, a student detained under the National Security Act. The court is reviewing appeals filed by Roopam and the Uttar Pradesh government against the high court’s September 2 judgment, which quashed Chaudhary’s detention in connection with the Noida workers’ protest in April 2026.

The high court had criticized the manner in which the detention order was passed, warning that continued ‘despotic’ conduct by ‘errant’ bureaucracy could reduce Uttar Pradesh to an Orwellian dystopia. It also directed that the DM’s conduct be recorded in her service records and awarded ₹5 lakh compensation to Chaudhary, with the amount to be recovered from the DM’s salary and other officers involved in the detention order. Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing Chaud, justified the HC order, which found the detention based on a ‘concocted’ story by the state and directed her immediate release.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for Roopam, argued that the high court’s strictures against her were uncalled for, noting that she was just one of many officers involved in the detention order. He claimed the high court passed the order without issuing notice to Roopam. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the state government, stated that Chaudhary was involved in fomenting trouble in a similar workers’ unrest in Manesar and came to Noida when the agitation shifted there. He argued that the DM had no role in the legality of the arrest, which was initiated by the station house officer and vetted through the chain of command.

The court emphasized that bureaucrats must remember their loyalty is towards the constitution and not the political executive. The case remains under review, with the Supreme Court yet to deliver its final judgment.

The high court’s findings that the detention was based on a ‘concocted’ story by the state remain unchallenged in the provided text. The compensation awarded to Chaudhary and the mechanism for its recovery from the DM’s salary are also not elaborated further. The case highlights tensions between state authorities and civil liberties, with the judiciary intervening to scrutinize administrative conduct under the National Security Act.

The legal proceedings underscore the complexities of balancing national security concerns with individual rights. The Supreme Court’s reservation of its order indicates that the case is not yet resolved, and further legal arguments may be required before a final decision is reached. The outcome could have implications for how detention orders under the NSA are handled and the accountability of administrative officials in such cases.