A day after reserving its orders, the Supreme Court has given interim relief to the Noida District Magistrate: the portion of the Allahabad High Court judgment that recorded strictures against her and directed the recovery of ₹5 lakh from her salary is stayed until the case is heard on merits. The stay is confined to that portion; the quashing of the student’s NSA detention is not before the Court on this order.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has stayed the operation of paragraphs 27 to 33 of the Allahabad High Court judgment which had directed the recovery of ₹5 lakh from the personal salary of the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar (Noida), Medha Roopam, and recorded strictures against her, in connection with a student’s detention under the National Security Act, 1980 that the High Court had quashed [Medha Roopam v. Akriti Chaudhary and Others].
A Bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh passed the order on the DM’s Special Leave Petition and a connected petition, in which Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the petitioner and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the State, while Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves appeared on caveat for the student.
The interim order
Granting permission to file the Special Leave Petition and issuing notice, the Court, after hearing the senior counsel on the question of interim relief, held that till the matter is heard on merits, the operation of the impugned judgment, particularly paragraphs 27 to 33, shall remain stayed. The same interim protection was granted in the connected petition. The respondents, including the student, were granted two weeks to file their replies, and the matter was listed for October 7, 2026.
The background
On September 2, the Allahabad High Court, allowing a habeas corpus petition, had quashed the NSA detention of Akriti Chaudhary, a 25-year-old Delhi University graduate, who had been detained in connection with cases arising from the Noida workers’ protest earlier this year. Along with quashing the detention, the High Court had, by the paragraphs now stayed, awarded ₹5 lakh compensation to be recovered from the salary of the District Magistrate who passed the detention order and of other officers held responsible, and directed that its displeasure be recorded in their service records.
The DM, supported by the State, challenged that portion of the order, contending that the strictures and the recovery were imposed without notice to her and that an officer performing a statutory function through layers of official process should not be personally penalised for a decision later found to be erroneous. On the previous day, the same issue had been argued before a different Bench, which had reserved its orders; the present order grants the interim relief sought.
Why it matters
The stay is a limited, interim measure, and decides nothing finally. It suspends only the consequences that the High Court visited personally on the officers, the salary recovery and the adverse service-record entries, until the Supreme Court examines, on merits, whether such personal strictures were justified and whether they could be passed without hearing the officer. The quashing of the detention itself is not disturbed by this order; that is a separate question, which the State has indicated it may challenge separately.
The case raises a question of continuing significance: how far a court, when it finds a preventive-detention order unsustainable, may impose personal financial and professional consequences on the officer who passed it, and whether principles of natural justice require that the officer first be heard. Those questions now await the Supreme Court’s consideration. The allegations against the student in the grounds of detention were not accepted by the High Court and remain contested, and nothing in this interim order bears on them; the matter will be taken up next on October 7.
Case Title: Medha Roopam v. Akriti Chaudhary and Others [SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 56202/2026, with SLP (Crl.) No. 18010/2026]
Bench: Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: September 23, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for the petitioner; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the State; Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves for the first respondent.
Status: Notice issued; paragraphs 27 to 33 of the Allahabad HC judgment (the ₹5 lakh salary-recovery and strictures) stayed until the matter is heard on merits. Listed for October 7, 2026. Quashing of the detention not in issue in this order; allegations against the student contested.
