Noida DM moves Supreme Court against quashing of student's NSA detention

The Gautam Budh Nagar district magistrate has moved the Supreme Court against an Allahabad High Court ruling that set aside her order detaining a Delhi University student under the National Security Act over a workers' protest in Noida.

The high court, in its September 2 order, came down sharply on district magistrate Medha Roopam over the manner in which the detention order was passed and directed that Rs 5 lakh in compensation be paid to the student, 25-year-old Akriti Chaudhary. The bench ordered the amount to be recovered from the salaries of Roopam and other officers found responsible, down to the station house officer.

The court held that the district magistrate's "casual and cavalier" exercise of authority had violated the student's constitutional rights, and said the conduct was worthy of derision. It observed that the officer should have examined why ordinary law was inadequate against a woman student activist with no prior criminal record who was agitating for the rights of labourers, and noted that the material on record did not show she had incited violence in any way.

According to the ruling, the material indicated that the district magistrate wanted to make an example of the petitioner and deter others from exercising their right to free speech and expression in public spaces in support of labourers. The court said the officer was guilty of violating her oath of allegiance, making it a fit case for compensation.

The bench also spoke about the relationship between the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service and the residents of Uttar Pradesh they serve, saying it defines the presence or absence of the rule of law. It noted that officers are given wide powers by law because they carry the responsibility of improving citizens' lives while balancing constitutional rights, dignity and welfare with the stability of the state and the unity and integrity of the nation.

Invoking the principle that great power brings great responsibility, the court urged the bureaucracy to introspect on how such power is being used. It said officers swear an oath of allegiance to India and the Constitution and should realise that their loyalty is to the Constitution, not the political executive, and that their honesty and impartiality are owed to the people they serve, who are the masters in a democracy.

The court described agitations as a safety valve in a pressure cooker, warning that preventing them and bottling up grievances could lead to violence that becomes difficult for law enforcement to control. It clarified that detention under the NSA is an exception and not a substitute for keeping a person in custody under concocted reasoning when they might otherwise get bail on merit.

Terming the grounds of detention repetitive, speculative and opinion-based without a shred of supporting evidence, the bench said such grounds must go beyond mere allegations and opinion, and that any discretion directly violating a person's rights under Article 21 cannot be exercised lightly on surmises, biases, conjectures and opinions.

The court held that detaining someone under the NSA requires strong evidence, not assumptions, and that a court must be fully satisfied that without immediate detention the person would almost certainly disrupt public order or threaten national security. Finding no material to suggest the agitation would turn violent or challenge the state's authority, it said freedom of speech and expression extends to coming out on the streets, agitating a cause and gathering peacefully without arms or threat to public order.

The ruling also cautioned that peaceful gatherings can be disrupted by mischievous elements sent by parties interested in breaking an agitation, and that attributing their violence to the entire group would be patently unjust. It said the state has a strong police force that must be trained to maintain order at large gatherings and to videograph them so accountability can be fixed if violence breaks out.