The Supreme Court is examining whether District Magistrate Medha Roopam can be held individually liable for the detention of student activist Akriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act. The court expressed skepticism about isolating the DM for financial responsibility when the detention process involved multiple layers of scrutiny and statutory safeguards.

The Supreme Court is examining whether District Magistrate Medha Roopam can be held individually liable for the detention of student activist Akriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act. The court expressed skepticism about isolating the DM for financial responsibility when the detention process involved multiple layers of scrutiny and statutory safeguards.

The Supreme Court is examining whether District Magistrate Medha Roopam can be held individually liable for the detention of student activist Akriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act. The court expressed skepticism about isolating the DM for financial responsibility when the detention process involved multiple layers of scrutiny and statutory safeguards.

The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, questioned whether Gautam Buddha Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam could be held individually responsible for the detention of student activist Akriti Chaudhary when the National Security Act (NSA) process involved multiple layers of scrutiny and statutory safeguards.

A bench of Justices S.C. Sharma and N.K. Singh reserved its order on Roopam’s challenge to the Allahabad High Court judgment that had quashed Chaudhary’s detention and directed payment of ₹5 lakh compensation, with the amount to be recovered from the salaries of officials, including the district magistrate.

The central issue before the Supreme Court was not merely the legality of Chaudhary’s detention but whether the district magistrate, who ultimately signed the detention order, could be singled out for personal financial liability when the material leading to the order had passed through several authorities.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, submitted that Roopam had acted on reports that had moved through the SHO, DCP and Commissioner before reaching her. He also pointed out that the detention had subsequently been examined by the NSA Advisory Board.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Roopam, argued that there were five stages in the decision-making process before the detention order was issued. According to him, the DM’s statutory role was to independently form an opinion after the prescribed safeguards and procedures had been followed.

“If the decision-making chain ran from top to bottom, we can’t isolate her,” the bench observed, questioning the basis for singling out Roopam for the ₹5 lakh recovery.

The Supreme Court's observation assumes significance because the Allahabad High Court had made unusually strong observations against the district administration while quashing Chaudhary’s detention. The High Court had described the detention as arbitrary and ordered compensation after finding fault with the manner in which the NSA was invoked. It also directed that its displeasure against the officials involved be recorded in their service records.

Chaudhary, a Delhi University graduate and activist, was arrested in connection with cases arising from a workers’ protest in Noida in April. The Uttar Pradesh Police subsequently invoked the NSA against her and activist-journalist Satya Verma on May 13. Chaudhary remained in custody for nearly five months before the High Court intervened.

The High Court had also directed that the ₹5 lakh compensation awarded to Chaudhary be recovered from the salaries of the officials it found responsible, extending down to the SHO who had prepared the initial report.

TAGS