The Gautam Budh Nagar district magistrate, Medha Roopam, has filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging an Allahabad High Court order that quashed her decision to detain a Delhi University student under the National Security Act (NSA) over a workers’ protest in Noida. The high court’s September 2 order criticized Roopam for the manner in which she passed the NSA order and ordered Rs 5 lakh compensation for the 25-year-old student, Akriti Chaudhary. The court also cautioned that unchecked abuses of power by Uttar Pradesh police and officials risk reducing the state to an 'Orwellian dystopia.'

The ruling stated that Roopam’s conduct was 'worthy of derision' and that she should have examined how the general law was inadequate against a female student activist with no previous criminal record, agitating for the rights of labourers. The court noted that the material on record did not disclose that Roopam had in any way incited violence. The order emphasized that the detention under the NSA was an exception and not a substitute for ensuring that a person who may receive bail on account of the merits of his case remains detained in custody under a 'concocted reasoning' by the state.

The high court also highlighted that any detention under the NSA requires strong evidence—not just assumptions or guesses. A court must review the district magistrate’s decision and be fully satisfied that, without immediate detention, the person would almost certainly disrupt public order or threaten national security. The court reminded the state that a peaceful agitation where people assemble without arms or ammunition can still be scuttled by mischievous elements, who may be sent by parties interested in ensuring that such an agitation is broken. It said such elements may indulge in acts of violence which can be later attributed to the entire group, which was 'patently unjust.'

The Supreme Court petition, filed by Roopam, arraigned Akriti Chaudhary as the primary respondent. The move comes a few days after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who had appeared for the authorities in the High Court, orally indicated that the government would separately challenge the September 2 order. The High Court had criticized Roopam’s lack of application of mind to a police report against the student activist. It had allowed Chaudhary’s habeas corpus petition and ordered her immediate release, unless she was required in another case. The High Court had flagged discrepancies in the arrest notice and termed the State’s version a 'concoed story.'

Chaudhary was among several activists arrested in connection with the protest held between April 10 and 18, during which industrial and contractual workers demanded a hike and parity with wages paid in neighbouring Haryana. The protest had turned violent on April 13. The Uttar Pradesh Police had invoked the NSA against Chaudhary a month later, alleging that 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. However, the High Court found no material to indicate that the agitation would be violent or challenge the state’s authority.

The details of the protest’s violence and the nature of the evidence cited by the police remain unclear. The court emphasized that preventing people from gathering in public spaces or agitating their rights on the grounds of assumed breach of peace would lead to a cessation of the collective expression of opinion in public spaces. The Constitution protects such a right and the same cannot be trifled with merely on the subjective opinion of the State.