New Delhi: The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday quashed the National Security Act (NSA) detention of student-activist Aakriti Chaudhary in the Noida workers’ protest, slamming her arrest and five-month detention a “concocted story by the state”.
A bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev heard Choudhary’s habeas corpus petition challenging her detention and directed that she be released immediately if the arrest was not warranted in any other case.
The 25-year-old Delhi University graduate along with 65-year-old journalist and activist Satyam Verma were booked under the stringent NSA by the Uttar Pradesh Police. She was accused of instigating violence at the workers’ protests that took place in April.
Chaudhary’s lawyer and senior advocate Colin Gonsalves told ThePrint that the court also directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay Rs 5 lakh as costs to her. This amount, he added, would be recovered from the erring officials who approved the NSA.
“Holding it to be a misuse of power, the court has come to a conclusion that Chaudhary did nothing wrong or spoke something that could have incited people to indulge in violence. The order also highlights the importance of freedom of speech and expression and the need to speak against the governed,” he said.
During Wednesday’s hearing, the State informed the court that Chaudhary was arrested at 10:56 a.m. on 12 April and that a notice under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The above-mentioned section mandates an executive magistrate to issue a formal written order before asking a person to show cause or execute a bond for keeping the peace or good behaviour.
The notice was served to Chaudhary in connection with the state’s allegation that she had instigated a mob to resort to arson and stone pelting.
Following the State’s submission, Justice Sreedharan asked its counsel if a notice under Section 126 of the BNSS was served to Chaudhary. The section empowers an executive magistrate to issue a show cause notice for keeping the peace.
The state’s counsel informed the court that “no notice under Section 126 BNSS had been served” and that only a notice under Section 130 was served.
The bench observed that the BNSS procedure states that Section 130 follows the earlier stage under Section 126. “As per the notice under Section 130, if she was willing to give a statement, she would not be arrested. However, as per the general diary entry, she was arrested first and then served a notice,” Justice Sreedharan observed.
Citing the general diary, the court questioned the state counsel’s version with regards to the sequence of events. It noted that the record showed that Chaudhary had already been arrested before the notice was prepared.
“She was not presented before a magistrate, but was arrested first. Had she been arrested first, then there would not have been any GD number or it would have been handwritten,” the bench observed.
The court further examined the State’s contention regarding Chaudhary’s involvement in the alleged violence at the Noida workers’ protest. As per the State’s claim, “people had gathered on 11 April to stage a protest in Noida”.
Questioning that, the bench observed that no violence erupted on 11 April, and “whatever violence has happened is after her arrest”.
The court had earlier on Tuesday asked the State’s counsel to produce footage indicating whether Chaudhary instigated protesters to indulge in violence like stone pelting or arson.
The State had sought time, but the court had refused stating that Chaudhary was in detention for the past five months. It had also asked the State counsel to produce material evidence in support of their claim over Chaudhary’s involvement.
While the state had informed that the chargesheet was already filed, the court observed that the State then should have taken cognisance of where the witnesses had named Chaudhary. However, the State’s counsel had stated that they only had witness statements.
(Edited by Tony Rai)