New Delhi: In its order quashing the National Security Act (NSA) detention of student-activist Aakriti Chaudhary in connection with the Noida workers’ protest, the Allahabad High Court has come down heavily on the manner in which the detention order was passed by Noida District Magistrate (DM) Medha Roopam.
The bench comprising Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev said that the Noida DM’s conduct was “worthy of derision”, and observed that she was “guilty of violating her oath of allegiance, making this a fit case for the imposition of compensation to the petitioner”.
Roopam, who is the daughter of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, became Noida’s first woman DM in July last year.
Aakriti Chaudhary, a 25-year-old Delhi University graduate, along with 65-year-old journalist and activist Satyam Verma, was booked under the stringent NSA by the Uttar Pradesh Police. She was accused of instigating violence at the Noida workers’ protests that took place in April. While the court had quashed the detention last week, the judgment was made public on Monday.
Chaudhary was arrested under Sections 191(1 & 2), (rioting) 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 121(1) (voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty), 125(a) (act endangering human life or personal safety of others), 351(3) (aggravated criminal intimidation involving severe threats), and 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) of the BNS, and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932 that deals with offences amounting to molesting a person to prejudice of employment or business. Subsequently, she was detained under the NSA, on orders passed by DM Roopam.
In its judgment, the court ordered Rs 5 lakh compensation for Chaudhary, and said that this amount “must be recovered from the salary of the District Magistrate Gautam Buddha Nagar, who has passed this order of detention without application of mind and from all such other officers who may have been responsible, right down to the SHO of the police station, who had prepared the initial report warranting the detention of the petitioner under the provisions of the NSA”.
The DM’s conduct, the court observed, revealed that she “desired to set an example out of the petitioner and deter others from exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression in public spaces in support of the labourers”.
The bench asserted that in a case in which the police report against Chaudhary was “only allegations without there being any credible material against her”, the DM “was expected to be vigilant and examine the record threadbare to determine if there was any material in support of the allegations”. It said that even after this exercise, the DM should have assessed whether the oppressive provisions of NSA were warranted against Chaudhary and whether general law of the land was inadequate against a female student activist without any previous criminal record, agitating for the rights of labourers.
The court agreed that even if this NSA order is quashed, Chaudhary would still remain in jail as she is facing trial in other criminal cases registered against her. However, it granted her Rs 5 lakh compensation, “on account of the casual and cavalier exercise of authority by the State through the District Magistrate Gautam Buddha Nagar, which has violated the constitutional rights of the petitioner”.
The bench asserted that the court’s “displeasure” against the DM’s conduct and the conduct of all the other police officers who were involved in preparing the dossier against Chaudhary “be noted in their service records”.
Additionally, it observed that the prosecution could not produce even one piece of evidence of WhatsApp chats and video recordings to establish their core allegations that Chaudhary was inciting people for riots and acts of violence and destruction of public property. Instead, the court observed that material on record establishes that Chaudhary had called for citizens in support of the labourers and to agitate for their rights, and that there was nothing on record to reflect that their agitation would have to be violent or challenging the authority of the State.
“The counsel for the State has not been able to show a single message from the WhatsApp chats between the petitioner and her associates or any video clip which would reveal any incitement from the petitioner, either evidently or by necessary implication, which would disclose that it was the involvement of the petitioner and conspiracy hatched by her that resulted in the violence…,” the order stated.
Also Read: Books on Marx, Facebook posts, village maps: Police’s evidence trail in Noida workers’ protest case
‘Orwellian dystopia’
In its judgment, the court ruled that Chaudhary’s continued incarceration violated her rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
“The order of detention along with the grounds of detention, being devoid of any material warranting the incarceration of the Petitioner under the NSA and the impugned order having been passed without application of mind, are quashed,” it observed.
Chaudhary had demanded compensation of Rs 50 lakh.
Examining her plea for compensation, the court observed that before IAS and IPS officers enter service, they swear an oath affirming that they will bear true allegiance to India and to the Constitution as by law established, that they will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, and that they will carry out the duties of their office loyally, honestly and with impartiality.
It then said that every time they ignore this oath and act contrary to it, “the people of the State of Uttar Pradesh would view them as an oppressive vestige of the British Empire arousing angst and hatred towards them creating an environment of civil unrest”.
In such cases, it said that the court, while correcting excesses and illegalities by such officers— especially when they impinge upon the civil liberties of the citizens without adequate cause or due process— may pass harsh orders to compensate the citizen so wronged, besides recording their despotic conduct.
“Else, it shan’t be long before the errant in the bureaucracy reduces the State of Uttar Pradesh to an Orwellian Dystopia,” it observed.
The court also pulled up the police for the discrepancies in the date of Chaudhary’s arrest, observing that materials produced before the court sort of established that she was arrested at the Botanical Garden metro station on 11 April and not on 12 April, as claimed by the police in court proceedings afterwards.
“Preventing people from gathering in public spaces or agitating their rights on the grounds of assumed breach of peace, would be throwing the baby out of the bath water. If such a view is taken by the State and approved of by the courts, it 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,” the court observed.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)
Also Read: Low wages, no overtime pay—why workers in Noida are protesting