Protest against economic injustice by workers in UP: Mentioning General Diary Entry Number in notice under Section 130 of BNSS ex post facto arrest of Akriti Chaudhary, the law student, turns procedure into a sham

Wherever the right of making and enforcing the law is vested in the same, there can be no public liberty.

-Blackstone

Allahabad High Court grants ₹5 lakhs as compensation to Akriti Chaudhary, the law student and the petitioner, to be recovered from the salary of Medha Roopam, the District Magistrate (DM), Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) in the national capital region, who passed the order of detention without application of mind and from all such responsible officers, who had prepared the initial report warranting the detention of the petitioner under the provisions of the NSA.

The High Court's judgment has  directed that the displeasure of the Court against the conduct of the District Magistrate concerned and all such other officers of the police who were involved in preparing the dossier against the petitioner, be noted in their service records.

The judgement has detected the blunder of mentioning the General Diary Entry No. 37 in the notice under Section 130 of the BNSS, which "reveals that the Petitioner was already arrested and the procedure of giving a notice under Section 130 of the BNSS was ex post facto the arrest and nothing more than a sham". 

The million dollar question is:why did the Uttar Pradesh police turn procedure of giving a notice under Section 130 into a sham? What did the UP Police gain by falsely showing the formal arrest of Akriti Chaudhary, the law student on April 12, 2026 after arresting her on April 11, 2026?  

In Akriti Chaudhary (Detenue) vs. Union Of India & 4 Ors. (2026), Allahabad High Court's Division bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev delivered a 15-page long judgement dated September 2, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"31.In this case, the conduct of the District Magistrate Gautam Buddha Nagar who passed the impugned order, is worthy of derision. In a case where the police report against the Petitioner were only allegations without there being any credible material against her, the District Magistrate was expected to be vigilant and examine the record threadbare to determine if there was any material in support of the allegations and even thereafter, assess whether the oppressive provisions of the NSA were warranted against the Petitioner and how the general law of the land was inadequate against a female student activist without any previous criminal record, agitating for the rights of labourers and where the material on record did not disclose that she had in any way incited violence, reveals that the District Magistrate 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 District Magistrate Gautam Buddha Nagar is guilty of violating her oath of allegiance, making this a fit case for the imposition of compensation to the petitioner.” It allowed the petition. Justice Sreedharan authored the judgement. In 2021, the High Court, quashed 94 out of 120 NSA detention orders it reviewed, citing procedural lapses and arbitrariness. It is apparently an unjust law. 

Justice Sreedharan observed:"The continued incarceration of the petitioner under the provisions of the NSA is violative of 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. The Petitioner shall be forthwith set at liberty, if not wanted in any other case. 26. The petitioner has prayed for a compensation of Rs. 50 lacs." 

He added:"27. As regards the compensation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that her detention and continued incarceration under the NSA, was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and the State has acted in excess of its authority. To this, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner has not suffered any extra detention other than that of one single day on 12.04.2026, as she was arrested in Case Crime No. 163 of 2026, and is in judicial custody in that case in which the bail application has been rejected. Therefore, learned counsel for the State has submitted that even if this order of NSA is struck down and set aside, the petitioner would continue to remain incarcerated till she secures bail in the criminal matters."

The judgement recorded:"32. The contention of the learned counsel for the State is that the illegal detention of the Petitioner if any, was only for a day (11.04.2026) as she was arrested in Crime No. 163/2026 on 12.04.2026 and has remained in judicial custody ever since and she would continue to remain incarcerated even after the quash of her detention by this Court till she receives bail in all the cases registered against her. In other words, the Ld. Counsel for the State has submitted that the incarceration of the Petitioner under the NSA has merged with her period of detention in judicial custody. This Court finds force in the submission put forth by the learned counsel for the State. 33. Undoubtedly, even if the order in this particular case is quashed, the petitioner would still remain in jail as an under trial till she secures bail in all the criminal cases registered against her. As the period of detention merges with the period of judicial custody, the amount as prayed for by the petitioner, need not be considered in its entirety. However, 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, this Court considers it sufficient to grant ₹5 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner. This Court also directs that the said 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 displeasure of this Court against the conduct of the District Magistrate concerned and all such other officers of the police who were involved in preparing the dossier against the petition, be noted in their service records."

The petitioner is Akriti Chaudhary, who was arrested in Case Crime No. 163 of 2026, on April 12, 2026, where she was named as an accused, inter alia, of having committed offence under Sections 191(1), 191(2), 115(2), 121(1), 125(a), 351(3) and 352 of BNSS and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932. Subsequently, she was detained under the National Security Act (NSA).

The genesis of the case commences from April 11, 2026, when during the month of April this year, there was widespread agitation in Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh by labourers, who were aggrieved by the payment of low salary, without any increase for several years, working for twelve hours at a stretch, and salaries being anything between ₹10-15,000 which was inadequate to lead a dignified and wholesome life on account of rising prices. Workers, numbering in thousands, came out into the streets near the industrial establishment and allegedly indulged in acts of vandalism and arson, destroyed the facades and glass panes of the factories and also set ablaze vehicles, including police vehicles. In the entire incident, the petitioner is alleged to be the agent provocateur, on account of whose actions and dissemination of information, the riots commenced from April 13, 2026. 

The petitioner's counsel submitted that the entire proceedings against the petitioner was an attempt to stifle freedom of speech and expression and even if the entire allegations against her is accepted without exception, there was no ground, much less sufficient grounds for having proceeded against the petitioner under the provisions of NSA. It was the case of the Petitioner that she was arrested at 5.30 pm on April 11, 2026 from Botanical Garden Metro Station which is situated in NOIDA, and locked up first in Sector-39 Police Station at 7.30 pm, and then she was locked up in various police stations during the night without any information being given by the police to petitioner's friends or family. On April 12, 2026, at around 1.00 pm, one of the petitioner's friends received a call from Sector-142 Police Station, informing her that the petitioner would be produced before Executive Magistrate at Sector 14A Police Station, where a lawyer representing the petitioner was informed that the petitioner was already produced and sent to jail under the orders of the Executive Magistrate under Section 126/135/170 of BNSS. Thus, it was the case of the Petitioner that she was never given an opportunity to sign a bond for good conduct.

The State submitted that the petitioner and her associates, between 6th, 7th and 8th of April, 2026 commenced the agitation and incitement to violence by the labourers from Manesar in Haryana, and thereafter, she and her associates shifted their focus towards NOIDA and hatched a conspiracy, allegedly in a library on how the violence against the State and its entities should be executed. It was also the undisputed case of the State that she was taken into custody on April 12, 2026, as much it was undisputed by the State that the violence commenced only from 13.04.2026. Therefore, the only inescapable inference that can be drawn is that the petitioner was in custody of the Law Enforcement Agencies from April 12, 2026, while the violence erupted from April 13, 2026. 

The counsel for the State has read out from the relevant portion of the order of the District Magistrate, which is elaborate and runs into several pages, wherein at page-40 of the counter affidavit  filed by the State, the main charge against the petitioner is reproduced herein as "पुलिस इतनी बड़ी संख्या में गिरफ़्तारी शांतिपूर्ण बैठे लोगों को शांति से बैठे लोगों को डरा रही है ये पुलिस है जो गैर कानूनी कायर्वाही कर रही है इसिलए जो लोग इस वीिडयो को देख सुन रहे है वो पुलिस  गैर कानूनी गैर वाजिब हरकतों को रोकने के लिए मजदूरों के दमन को रोकने के लिए बड़ी संख्या में पहुंचे।" (The police are arresting people who are sitting peacefully and are intimidating them; it is the police who are engaging in illegal actions. Therefore, those watching and listening to this video should arrive in large numbers to put a stop to the police's unlawful and unjust conduct and to halt the suppression of the workers.)

The judgement reads:" Even if these lines are taken to be the gospel truth, there is no incitement for violence, at the most and at its worst, it is only calling for people to gather to protect the rights of the labourers and stand with them in solidarity against the unlawful and excessive use of the authority by the police. This conversation had allegedly taken place between the petitioner and another co-accused." It was also submitted by the State that the WhatsApp chats between the petitioner and her associates, revealed that the petitioner allegedly told her associates that the police has gathered in large numbers in order to arrest those who are agitating peacefully and are scaring them by misusing their authority and therefore, anyone who can see and read this message should come in large numbers to prevent the unlawful actions of the police and to stand in support of the labourers who are being exploited. 

The judgement recorded that "10. There were several FIR's after Crime No. 163 of 2026, in which the Petitioner, though not initially named in the FIR as an accused, has also been inserted as an accused subsequently. In Case Crime No. 163 of 2026, the chargesheet has been filed against the Petitioner before the appropriate court, in which cognizance has been taken and the bail application of the petitioner has also been dismissed. The grounds of detention are given in page nos. 39 to 47 of the counter affidavit, which this Court has gone through. The introductory paragraph of the grounds of detention has already been stated hereinabove as to how the petitioner is stated to have entered into a conspiracy on 6th, 7th and 8th of April, 2026 in order to foment violence by the labourers in Manesar, Haryana and how in the library
of one Yogesh Swamy, the Petitioner along with her other associates had hatched the conspiracy for both Manesar and NOIDA under the guise of the labour unrest.

The first ground related to April 12, 2026 on which date the Petitioner was arrested and produced before the Magistrate for remand and how at her indication, her mobile phone was recovered on April 25, 2026 (thirteen days after her arrest) from which the WhatsApp chats have allegedly been extracted.

The second ground, related to April 10, 2026, where the allegation against the petitioner was that in order to make the impending agitation by the labourers violent, she met her associates and created groups over WhatsApp and thereafter, the violence erupted from April 13, 2026 on account of the conspiracy hatched by the petitioner and her associates. Paragraph-3 relates to the commencement of violence on April 13, 2026 and how on April 11, 2026, the petitioner along with her co-conspirators at about 9.00 am in the morning gathered at Hosiery Complex, N.S.E.Z., Phase-2, Gautam Buddha Nagar along with 300-400 workers, tried to prevent labourers going for their work. The date on which this is supposed to have happened is April 13, 2026 pursuant to the alleged conspiracy which was stated to have been hatched on April 11, 2026. After which she was arrested on April 12, 2026, though it is the consistent case of the Petitioner that she was arrested by the police on April 11, 2026.

The judgment summarized the grounds of detention against the Petitioner, all the acts of violence commenced from April 13, 2026 onwards which led to widespread loss of public and private property and had taken place after the petitioner was in custody. The crux of the State's case for keeping the petitioner under detention is that all the violence that had taken place during the agitation, though had taken place after the arrest of the petitioner, are attributable to her on account of conspiracy that was hatched by her before her arrest on April 12, 2026 and if not for the same, the violence would never had taken place.

The petitioner is about 24 years old, a graduate in History from Daulat Ram College, who went on to do her M.A. in History from Delhi University and is currently a student of First Year Law at the Law Faculty at Delhi University and has no previous criminal antecedents at all (this has been admitted to by the State also).

The counsel for the respondent State submitted the WhatsApp chats that had taken place between the petitioner and her associates to justify the grounds of detention and the order of detention. It was also mentioned that it was trite law that to place a person in detention under the NSA, it was not required that the person must be arraigned as an accused in a catena of criminal cases and that the same may be given effect to on the mere apprehension of disturbance of public order by such person or a singular act which is harmful for the security of the State.

The counsel for the State placed before the High Court the notice that had allegedly been issued under Section 130 of the BNSS before Akriti Chaudhary, the law student of Delhi University was taken into custody. The notice was issued on April 12, 2026, whereby bond for good behaviour was fixed at Rs. 50,000/- and thereafter, allegedly on the grounds of the petitioner refusing to furnish the bail bond to keep good behaviour for six months, was taken into custody on the basis of the General Diary Entry No. 37 dated April 12, 2026 at 10.56 am by the District Unit (Commissionerate Gautam Buddha Nagar). The arrest is said to have been made at 10.20 am on April 12, 2026. The notice under Section 130 was also given to the petitioner on April 12, 2026. It purportedly bears the signatures of the Petitioner along with two others, showing that it was received by them. However, no time has been mentioned in the said notice under Section 130. It is also necessary to mention here that the G.D. number 37 on the basis of which she was arrested finds its mention in the notice under section 130 of the BNSS. The same is not written by hand but is printed.

In his judgement, Justice Sreedharan recorded that "17. My learned brother on the bench Justice Achal Sachdev, pointed out that the General Diary Entry No. 37 was generated at 10.20 am on 12.04.2026 and the mention of the G.D number in the notice under Section 130 goes to reveal that the notice was prepared after the arrest of the petitioner for, had the same been prepared before the arrest of the Petitioner, the G.D. number would not have been mentioned on the notice u/s. 130 BNSS. Mentioning the G.D. number in the notice under Section 130 of the BNSS reveals that the Petitioner was already arrested and the procedure of giving a notice under Section 130 of the BNSS was ex post facto the arrest and nothing more than a sham. I agree with the view of brother Justice Achal Sachdev that the notice u/s. 130 of the BNSS was prepared after the arrest of the Petitioner and that is the reason why the time of issuance is not mentioned in the notice and its omission is deliberate. Answer was sought from the Ld. Counsel for the state with regard to visible fabrication in the record for which no answer is forthcoming from the Ld. Counsel for the State.

With regard to the arrest of the Petitioner, the judgement recorded, "the contention of the learned counsel for the State is that the petitioner was arrested on 12.04.2026, while the Petitioner's side insists that she was taken into custody on 11.04.2026 from 5.30 pm onwards, which is denied by learned counsel for the State." 

Justice Sreedharan observed: "In order to assess which of the two versions is correct, this Court examined the extracts from the WhatsApp conversation between the petitioner and one of her associates produced and relied upon by the State. On page no. 1, is the conversation between one Priyambada, an associate of the Petitioner, messaging the petitioner. The date of the message is 11.04.2026 at 17:56 hrs, to which there is no reply from the petitioner. Then, there were two messages at 17:57 hrs, one at 17.58 hrs, next at 18:14 hrs, 18:35 hrs, 18:56 hrs, 19:11 hrs and a missed call at 19.31 hrs. None of these messages and the call have been answered by the petitioner."

The counsel for the State drew the attention of the High Court to page no. 2 of the WhatsApp chats, which shows again the messaging between the petitioner and Priyambada, which shows a video clip of the gathering sent by the petitioner to Priyambada at 13:41 hrs of 11.04.2026, which was replied with an emoji by Priyambada at 13:50 hrs, and thereafter, Priyambada messaged at 13:56 hrs, which is replied by the petitioner at 14:03 hrs.  

Taking note of the submission by the State, the High Court inferreded: "Thus, the messages at page-1 which is of 11th April, 2026 from 17:56 hrs onwards sent to the petitioner- Akriti Chaudhary by her associate Priyambada have not been answered by the petitioner. The only probable reason was that the mobile was not with the Petitioner or that she was in a situation that she could not reply to the messages from Priyambada which probabilise as true, the version put forth by the Petitioner that she was in the custody of the State from 5.30 pm of 11.04.2026 while her formal arrest was shown from 12.04.2026 and concomitantly, falsifies the contention of the State that the Petitioner was in the custody of the State only from 12.04.2026.

The High Court repeatedly asked the counsel for the State to point out from the WhatsApp chats and the video recordings as to which one of them incited people or disclosed a conspiracy inciting people to indulge in acts of rioting, arson and destruction of public and private property? It observed: "The counsel for the State could not 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 the conspiracy hatched by her that resulted in the violence which erupted from April 13, 2026, much after the Petitioner was taken into custody by the State on 11.04.2026 (as held by this Court). Even otherwise, the undisputed case of the State is also that the violence erupted after the Petitioner was taken to custody by the police."

The judgement observed: "21. The video images relied upon by the State show a large number of people having gathered, which include men and women in traditional rural clothing, all standing near a lamp posts and one video image of a person who seems to be addressing the public. None of these videos disclose that the crowd is agitated or armed with lathi, stones or any such articles, which may be used in an act of violence, but appear to be exercising their constitutional right and freedom of speech and agitating their demands for higher pay and humane working hours."

The High Court observed:"22. Any detention under the NSA is an exception. It is not a substitute to ensure that a person who may receive bail on account of merits of his case, is still detained in custody under a concocted reasoning by the State. The elaborate grounds of detention of the District Magistrate are repetitive, speculative and are only opinion based without referring to a shred of evidence/material in support of sustaining those opinions. The grounds of detention must traverse beyond mere allegations and opinion. Allegations which raise a subjective opinion in the mind of the District Magistrate must be supported with reference to material for the formation of such opinion, else the same would be arbitrary. It must be understood that the exercise of such a discretion which directly violates a person's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be exercised lightly on the basis of surmises, biases, conjectures and opinions. It is the exercise of an extraordinary authority which results in the summary incarceration of a citizen merely on the opinion of the detaining authority which must be such that where a constitution court examining the grounds of detention is also satisfied that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the District Magistrate, crosses the threshold of mere surmises and conjectures and was justly based upon the material on record and not detaining the detenue under the stringent provisions of the NSA would in all probability than not, result in the public order being disturbed or would result in an act by the
detenue which is deleterious to national security. The absence of such material would render the grounds of detention and the order of detention unjustified, deserving to be set aside."

The judgment pointed out that the material on record showed that at the petitioner, the law student had called for citizens in support of the labourers and to agitate for their rights. "There is no material to reflect that such agitation will have to be violent or challenging the authority of the State. The freedom of speech and expression extends to coming out on the streets and agitating a cause, and gathering peacefully without arms or without threat to the public order. However, the State must also realize that a peaceful agitation where people collect without arms or ammunitions, can still be scuttled by mischievous elements, who may be sent by parties, who are interested in ensuring that such an agitation is broken and also where such elements may indulge in acts of violence, which thereafter gets attributed to the entire group which is patently unjust. 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 State must also realize that it has a strong and powerful police force, which must be trained in ensuring public order in such large gatherings and also resort to videography of the gathering and the manner in which it is conducted, so that accountability may be affixed, in the event of an outbreak of violence."

Justice Sreedharan recorded that the relationship between the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and the Indian Police Service (IPS) on the one hand and the citizens of Uttar Pradesh whom they serve on the other, define the existence of the rule of law or its absence, as the case may be. There must also be a realisation that with great powers come great responsibility and an expected introspection on the part of the bureaucracy as to whether such powers be resorted to, and to what extent. "Else, in the words coined by Rudyard Kipling (spoken publicly by Stanley Baldwin) that 'power without responsibility – the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages, will ring true whenever the power is exercised by the bureaucracy in a cavalier manner, devoid of human sensitivity resulting in deleterious consequences for the citizen."

Justice Sreedharan observed that the IAS and IPS should realise that their loyalty is towards the Constitution and not the political executive, and the honesty and impartiality are towards the people whom they serve while bearing in mind at all times that they are the servants who serve the people, the masters in a democracy. In the bureaucracy and the police, when they act in a manner which is harmonious with their
oath of allegiance, the citizens are thankful but "every time they ignore that solemn 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 and this Court, while correcting their excesses and/or illegalities, especially those that impinge upon the civil liberties of the citizens without adequate cause or due process (inhering in the procedure established by law), 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 reduce the State of Uttar Pradesh to an Orwellian Dystopia."

The 17-page long order sheet is available here. It records the genesis of the case which commenced from April 11, 2026, when during the month of April 2026 year. There was widespread agitation in Gautam Buddha Nagar by labourers, who were aggrieved by the payment of low salary, without any increase for several years, working for twelve hours at a stretch, and salaries being anything between ₹10-15,000 which was inadequate to lead a dignified and wholesome life on account of rising prices. Workers, numbering in thousands, came out into the streets near the industrial establishment and allegedly indulged in acts of vandalism and arson, destroyed the facades and glass panes of the factories and also set ablaze vehicles, including police vehicles. In the entire incident, the petitioner was/is alleged to be the agent provocateur, on account of whose actions and dissemination of information, the riots commenced from April 13, 2026. The facts recorded in the judgment indicate that the entire proceedings against the petitioner was an attempt to stifle freedom of speech and expression. There was no ground, much less sufficient grounds for having proceeded against the petitioner under the provisions of NSA. 

The National Security Act (NSA) 1980, one of three counter -terror laws was enacted on December 27, 1980 after the notoriety of Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971 came to light during 21 months of the Emergency (1975-1977), which was deployed to silence opposition parties. Entry 9 of List I (the Union List) and Entry 3 of List III (the Concurrent List) empower the Central Government and State Governments, respectively, to frame laws concerning preventive detention. This preventive detention provision which has survived under Article 22 (3) of the Constitution of India, is a colonial residue of special laws introduced by the British monarch's East India Company in 1784 under which numerous freedom fighters were incarcerated. Post independence, it remained alive through the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 till 1969. It was replaced by MISA Act, 1971, which was repealed in 1978.  The successor of MISA is no better. The constitutionality of the NSA was challenged in the case of A.K. Roy vs. Union of India 1982 SCR (2) 272 on the ground that it is a draconian law that places arbitrary and excessive powers in the hands of the executive and was violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. But Section 3 (1) and Section 3(2) of the NSA was not struck down on grounds of uncertainty and vagueness by the 5-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. It majority judgment reads: "We must therefore, held, regretfully though, that the detenu has no right to appear through a legal practitioner in the proceedings before the Advisory Board." 

The specter of colonial law which impacted the judicial outcome in A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27 that upheld preventive detention within a compartmentalised reading of fundamental rights loomed large over the decision in the A.K. Roy's case. It ought o have factored in the decision in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 because certain provisions of the NSA are not just, reasonable and fair.

Under Section 3 of NSA, the Central Government or the State Governments can order the detention of a person in order to prevent him from adversely affecting the security of India, defence of India, India’s relations with foreign nations, the maintenance of public order, or the supply of essential supplies. NSA permits central and state governments, and in specified circumstances, the DMs and Commissioners of Police, to detain a person for up to 12 months if the DM is satisfied that the person's activities are prejudicial to national security, public order, or the maintenance of essential services. Section 4 provides that the detention order can be executed at any place throughout the territory of India. Under Section 8, the grounds of detention have to be communicated to the detained person as soon as possible. Such communication must preferably be made within a maximum period of 5 days and, in exceptional cases, within a maximum period of 15 days. In Devesh Chourasia vs. District Magistrate, Jabalpur (2022), the petitioner had been detained by an order passed under Section 3 of the Act. The court noted that the petitioner’s representation against the detention order was not considered expeditiously, and the rejection of such representation was not communicated to the petitioner in a timely manner by the Central and State governments. As a consequence, the 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court set aside the detention order and the extension that was granted to the detention. The critical procedural safeguard built into the Act is the Advisory Board mechanism provided under Section 9. Under Section 10, within three weeks of a detention order, the government is required to refer the matter to the Advisory Board composed of persons qualified to be High Court judges. Under the provisions of Section 11, the Advisory Board is required to submit its report within seven weeks. If the Advisory Board finds no sufficient cause for detention, the person is required to be released. This safeguard is insufficient and ineffective. 

In Akriti Chaudhary's case judgement does not refer to the role of the Advisory Board. It seems to be as good as non-existent. Did DM, Gautam Buddh Nagar refer her case the Advisory Board under the NSA after three weeks of her denetion since April 11, 2026? Did the Advisory Board submit its report within seven weeks? Did the Board apply its mind in the matter? Is the Advisory Board defunct? 

It is not clear as to whether or not the Vice Chancellor and the law faculty of Delhi University, Student Union of the University, the alumni of faculty of law of the university and the students of the faculty of law played any role to ensure that Akriti Chaudhary does not become a victim of lawfare. Aren't they happy with the judgement of the Allahabad High Court? Do they teach labour laws at the law faculty of Delhi University? 

Do they teach students that the payment of low salary, without any increase for several years, working for 12 hours at a stretch, and a salary of ₹10-15,000 is adequate to lead a dignified and wholesome life amidst rising commodity prices? Are students in the families of IAS, IPS, junior officers and subordinate judiciary taught to accept such salary as fair? Is it not the case that deafening silence in the face of such indefensible economic injustice is louder than their speech? If it is justified it must be taught as being justified.     

The case of Akriti Chaudhary is a case study for law students across the world including the law faculty of Delhi University. It demonstrates how officers entrusted with laws enforcement who have no training in law are ill equipped to deal with just enforcement of laws.   

 Also read: May Day, Labour Codes, Tribunalisation of Judiciary and Workers Unrest

Supreme Court grants bail to Shashi Kumar Ram, Justice Sandeep Kumar had denied it

In Shashi Kumar Ram vs, The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices  K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli passed a 3-page long order dated July 16, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"5. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending trial. 6. We direct that the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, pending trial. 7. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the above terms." 

The petitioner had questioned the correctness of the 2-page long order dated March 16, 2026 passed by Justice Sandeep Kumar of the Patna High Court in Shashi Kumar Ram vs, The State of Bihar (2026) whereby the bail application of the petitioner was rejected. 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already undergone approximately 7 months in custody, since he was arrested on December 29, 2025. He also submitted that the petitioner was roped in due to the confessional statement of the co-accused; there was no recovery of the contraband or incriminating material from the petitioner and the alleged recoveries have been made from the premises not owned, controlled and possessed by the petitioner. Taking the prosecution case at its highest, the petitioner was alleged to have handled the finances. The counsel submitted that the petitioner was not involved in the alleged activities like procurement, adulteration, storage or transportation. It was not in dispute that the other 4 accused are on bail.

The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking bail in connection with Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No.523 of 2025 registered for the offence under sections 111, 303(2), 287, 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318(4) of the B.N.S., 2023, under section 3/4 of the Explosive substance Act and under section 7 of the E.C. Act. The petitioner and others were found manufacturing adulterated petrol. The petitioner was in custody since December 29, 2025. During investigation, it emerged that the petitioner is the financer behind the illicit business of manufacturing adulterated petrol. Kustice Kumar had declined to grant bail to the petitioner. 

Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy directs disposal of confiscation case within four months

Patna High Court delivered six judgements on October 13, 2025 in Najis Alam vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Nikhil Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Dr. Shishir Kumar Gangwar vs. Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agriculture University, Pusa, Kapildeo Prasad vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Amrendra Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. and Sunil Kumar Sinha vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.

In Najis Alam vs. The State of Bihar & Ors (2025), Justice G. Anupama Chakravarthy of Patna High Court passed a 5-page long judgement dated October 13, 2025. In the penultimate paragraph, she concluded:''Considering the fact that in similar matters this court has been directing provisional release of the vehicle and release of food-grains, this court finds that six months has already gone and as the food-grains are not controlled items and it would only be just and proper to direct the District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Purnia (Respondent No. 2) to release the food- grains and the Tractor as well as Trailer of the petitioner on his furnishing document of registration of the vehicles in his favour and surety bond to the extent of the cost of the food-grains and the value of the vehicles as indicated in the insurance document. The surety bond shall not be in form of cash or bank guarantee. The question as to whether in the given facts the confiscation proceeding should be continued against the petitioner shall be considered after filing of a counter affidavit. The aforesaid release shall be ordered within a period of one week from the date of submission of the surety bond as indicated above.''

She observed: ''3. On perusal of the interim order, it is evident that the vehicle as well as food grains of the
petitioner were released by the respondents. It is contended by the Learned counsel for the petitioner that the confiscation proceedings are pending before the respondents. Therefore, the respondents are directed to dispose of the confiscation case within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of this order.'' Besides the State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Bihar, the other four respondents were the Collector District Magistrate, Purnea, District Supply Officer, Purnea, S.D.O Baisi, Purnea and Block Supply Officer Baisa, Purnea.

The petitioner had prayed for quashing the notice/order dated December 7, 2018 issued by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Purnea in Essential Commodities (E.C.) Act case as well as whole confiscation proceeding bearing E.C. Act Case No. 308/2018 in as much as the grains in question is not subsidized PDS food grains but it is the own procure food grains of the petitioner. He had also prayed for a direction to the respondents concerned to release the tractor bearing and trailer bearing registration on BR37GA-0255 as well as the food grains which has been seized for the alleged violation of Essential Commodities Act in connection with Rauta P.S. Case No. 103/2018 for offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. and Section 7 of E.C. Act.

Supreme Court stays proceedings before Trial Court, Justice Bibek Chaudhuri refused to quash FIR in a private dispute under corporate law

In Sarita Bajaj & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Supreme Court's bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed an order dated July 18, 2025 staying further proceedings before the Trial Court. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri of Patna High Court had passed a 20-page long judgement dated May 9, 2025, wherein, he concluded:"....I have no other alternative but to hold that in the instant case, the F.I.R. being Kotwali P. S. Case No. 45 of 2024, dated 18th August, 2023, cannot be quashed. 32. The issue involving forgery and a criminal investigation has not been complained of by any instrumentality of the State. The dispute is absolutely private in nature involving two full brothers and their families in respect of partition and subsequent financial irregularity of family-owned companies. Therefore, no writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies. 33. The instant writ petition is, thus, dismissed on contest."

Drawing on the judgement passed by National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, Justice Chaudhari was "convinced that the allegation made by the Petitioner for outstanding loan is frivolous as the Learned Court has already adjudicated the matter in detail and has come to its finding."  He observed:"The writ courts often do not delve deeply into factual disputes and the evidences as to whether the signatures done on Securities Transfer Form (SH-4) was fabricated or not and so the Court can not come to the conclusion as to whether the signature is forged or not but has come across the Judgement of NCLAT, New Delhi where it is seen that the Petitioners were previously capable of producing false document."

Sarita Bajaj, the Petitioner had invoked Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the FIR registered on January 16, 2024 at Kotwali Police Station in 2024 for the offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

On January 16, 2024, Sushil Kumar Bajaj, the brother of Ajay Kumar Bajaj, Petitioner No. 2, had submitted a written complaint to the Station House Officer of Kotwali Police Station, alleging inter alia, that Ajay Kumar Bajaj (son of Late Purshottam Das), Awi Bajaj (son of Ajay Kumar Bajaj), Sarita Bajaj (wife of Ajay Kumar Bajaj), and Asit Baran Paul (Chartered Accountant) were involved in fabricating documents to unlawfully transfer of shares of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., which belonged to him, into the names of Awi Bajaj and Sarita Bajaj. He also alleged that the accused forged a letter to illegally withdraw funds from the account of Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., and subsequently transferred the money to another company, Mandyati Dealcom Private Limited. The complainant, Sushil Kumar Bajaj, and the 4th accused, Ajay Kumar Bajaj, are entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)/Family Partition agreement. According to the agreement, it was decided that Bajaj Buildcon Private Limited, along with other associated companies, would be transferred to Ajay Kumar Bajaj. The parties agreed to close all existing bank accounts of the respective companies and subsequently will transfer the shares. 

The terms of the Family Partition clearly indicated that the first party refers to Sushil Kumar Bajaj and his family, while the second party refers to Ajay Kumar Bajaj and his family. Clause 1 of the memorandum outlines the companies that will be transferred to the first party (the informant), and Clause 2 details the companies that will be given to the second party (Ajay Kumar Bajaj) and his family. The informant acknowledged the existence of this partition deed in his written complaint. It was confirmed that following the transfer of ownership, the shares of the respective companies will also be transferred to the names of the relevant parties and their families. In accordance with the agreed arrangement, Petitioner No. 1, Sarita Bajaj, and Petitioner No. 3, Awi Bajaj, were appointed as Directors of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. On February 27, 2021, the informant submitted his resignation from the Directorship of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and executed a formal instrument of transfer as required under Section 56 of the Companies Act, 2013. 

On February 27, 2021, on 27.02.2021, the informant executed two instruments of transfer. One instrument was executed with Sarita Bajaj, transferring 1,11,800 (One Lakh Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred) shares of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., which belonged to the informant, to her, in strict compliance with the terms of the family partition. It is important to note here that while the informant also resigned from Balaji Electrosteels Limited, as indicated in a notice, dated August 30, 2021, he did not transfer the shares of Balaji Electrosteels Limited, despite being obligated to do so. On February 27, 2021, the informant executed another instrument of transfer, through which he transferred 3,20,000 (Three Lakh Twenty Thousand) shares of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. ltd to Awi Bajaj. These share transfers were carried out in full compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, and the relevant details were duly communicated to the Registrar of Companies. In fact, the informant formally surrendered the shares to be transferred, and a certificate of transfer was subsequently issued. The instruments of transfer were properly stamped, executed in the presence of witnesses, and have never been contested or disputed previously. It is important to note that on February 28, 2021, a meeting of the Board of Directors of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. was held, during which it was resolved to accept the informant's resignation from the Directorship of the company. Ajay Kumar Bajaj was authorized to file DIR-12 and any other required documents with the Registrar of Companies, as per the provisions of the Companies Act. Another Board meeting of Balaji Electrosteels Limited took place, and through a resolution, dated August 31, 2021, the informant's resignation from the company was formally accepted. On April 3, 2021, another meeting of the Board of Directors of Bajaj Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. was held. The informant claims that he was not notified, informed, or made aware of the meeting.

The informant had already initiated proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, in 2022, seeking a declaration that the instruments of transfer, dated February 27, 2021 were forged and illegal, along with other related reliefs. Notably, certain terms of the Memorandum of Family Partition were not complied with or honoured by the informant. In response, Ajay Kumar Bajaj had filed a suit for partition in the Court of Sub-Judge-1, Patna, which has been registered as a Title Suit of 2023. Among other allegations, the informant alleged that Kanika Buildcon Private Limited took a loan of Rs. 9,13,00,000.00 (Nine Crore Thirteen Lakh) only from Mandyati Dealcom Private Limited for the period between 2010 and 2017. The informant also claimed that according to their understanding, the loan does not incur any interest. 

Under the terms of the family partition, Kanika Buildcon was transferred to the informant, while Mandyati Dealcom was transferred to Ajay Kumar Bajaj. As a result, the rights and liabilities associated with the respective companies were also transferred to the respective parties. Ajay Kumar Bajaj sent a letter under the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Code, demanding that Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. pay an amount of Rs. 18,37,51,400/- (Eighteen Crore Thirty Seven Lakh Fifty One Thousand Four Hundred) only. 

Besides this, an application was filed by Mandyati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. against Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in 2022, seeking recovery of Rs. 18,37,51,400/- (Eighteen Crore Thirty Seven Lakh Fifty One Thousand Four Hundred) only, which includes both the principal amount of Rs. 1,22,50,000/- and interest of Rs. 17,15,01,400. 

During the proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, it was admitted that Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. owes Rs. 1,22,50,000. On November 8, 2023, the Tribunal admitted the application and initiated the insolvency resolution process for Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Kanika Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, registered as Company Appeal (AT) No. 1540 of 2020. In connection with this, a demand draft for Rs. 1,22,50,000/- was handed over to Mandyati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., as evident from the order, dated December 4, 2023.

Notably, in the counter affidavit, filed by Sushil Kumar Bajaj, the Respondent No. 5, dated February 4, 2025, the High Court found that the accused individually and unlawfully transferred the share of Respondent No. 5 (the informant) amounting to Rs. 1,98,50,000/- to Awi Bajaj (Petitioner No. 3), and Rs. 69,10,000/- to Sarita Bajaj (Petitioner No. 1). These transfers were made using forged share transfer deeds. The transfer was not authorized by the Board of Directors, nor were the transferees’ signatures obtained.

Although the transfer of shares was recorded with a Board Resolution, dated April 3, 2021, Respondent No. 5 (the informant) was not notified of the meeting, nor were the transferees informed. In collusion with C.A., Asit Baron Paul, the accused parties falsified the share transfer, and forged documents were submitted, which are now part of the records at the Register of Companies.. In regard to the loan amount, being levied on the Kanika Buildcon (which is operated by Respondent No. 5) the Respondent submits that before the partition, both the petitioners and Respondent No. 5 (the informant) jointly handled the company and financially supported each other. As part of this arrangement, Kanika Buildcon managed by Respondent No. 5, took a loan/advance of Rs. 9,13,00,000/- from Mandyati Dealcom, owned by the accused (petitioners), between September, 2010 and April, 2017, which was mostly repaid.

However, after the family partition, Mandyati Dealcom unexpectedly demanded Rs. 18,06,20,352/- (eighteen crores, six lakhs, twenty thousand, three hundred and fifty-two), while only Rs. 1,22,50,000/- remained outstanding against the original loan of Rs. 9,13,00,000/-. Later, Respondent No. 5 discovered that Ajay Kumar Bajaj had filed a false case in the Company Court, claiming that, as a Director of Kanika Buildcon, he had written a letter to Sushil Bajaj (Respondent No. 5/informant), the then Director of Mandyati Dealcom, accepting a loan of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- with interest. For the same, an application was filed under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) by the Petitioners in December, 2022, claiming an amount of Rs. 18,37,51,400/- which include principal amount of Rs. 1,22,50,000/- and the interest of 17,15,01,400/- till 31.07.2022. Date of default for the same was mentioned as August 2, 2021. In the application under Section 7 of IBC, the Appellant claimed that conditions of loans were set out in writing in letter, dated September 20, 2010, written by Director of the Corporate Debtor Company to the Financial Creditor. The matter was first adjudicated by NCLT, Kolkata Bench and later went in appeal to NCLAT New Delhi.

 

Misconceived cognizance order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur quashed for being "contingent prosecution"

In Radhika Devi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors (2014), by his order dated November 10, 2014 Justice Ashutosh Kumar of Patna High Court quashed the order dated March 24, 2011 passed in G.R. No. 82 of 2011, corresponding to a Pirpainti Police Station Case of 2011 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, by which he had taken cognizance against the petitioners under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The proceedings pending in the court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur was stayed by the order of Justice Shivaji Pandey on August 17, 2012. The case was filed in the High Court on May 10, 2011.

Prior to passing his final order, Justice Kumar recorded in his order dated October 20, 2014 that that the petitioners are the licensed dealers in fertilizer. On the report of Sudhakar Pandey, Block Agriculture Officer, Pirpainti, Bhagalpur, the Opposite Party No. 2 had lodged the First Information Report. The content of the First Information Report was that Opposite Party/Respondent No. 2, on enquiry had expressed suspicion that there is a possibility of the petitioners selling the fertilizer in black market. On such unfounded presumption, Sanjay Kumar, D.C.L.R., Kahalgoan, Bhagalpur, the Opposite Party/Respondent No. 3 launched the prosecution. The Court was "inclined to hear Opposite Party No. 3 as to how and under what circumstances he chose to file the First Information Report against the petitioners on such flimsy ground mainly the presumption of black marketing of fertilizer at the hands of the petitioners" but nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No. 3 although the record of the case revealed that "some advocate had appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No. 3 and had sought adjournment."

The petitioner's counsel had submitted that "such contingent prosecution is unheard of in criminal jurisprudence. The order records: "The counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 merely states that the F.I.R. was lodged at the instance of superior office of the administration." The order concluded: "Considering the above facts, the order taking cognizance dated 24.03.2011 in connection with Pirpainti P.S. Case No. 6/2011 (G.R. No. 82/2011) under Section 7 of the E.C. Act appears to be misconceived. The same is quashed." It is apparent that superior officer was not taken to task for his act of omission and commission 

The other petitioners from Pirpainti, Bhagalpur were: Anil Kumar, Ram Krishna Khetan, Ashok Kumar Kataruka @ Ashok Kumar and Rabindra Kumar. The other three respondents were: Sudhakar Pandey, Block Agriculture Officer, Pirpainti, Bhagalpur and Sanjay Kumar, D.C.L.R., Kahalgoan, Bhagalpur.

Patna High Court sets aside orders of judicial officers from Madhubani and Jhanjharpur in a case under Essential Commodities Act

In Manoj Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha of Patna High Court quashed and set aside the order dated December 15, 2023 passed by 9th/3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madhubani in a Criminal Revision case as well as the cognizance order dated September 21, 2023 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur in connection with Ghoghardiha case of 2019. 

The application was filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order by 9th/3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Criminal Revision No.274 of 2023, whereby the trial court had affirmed the order passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Jhanjharpur and had rejected the revision application of the petitioner as well as for quashing the cognizance order passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, through which Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in connection the offence punishable under Section 409/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

The Court observed:"The dispute in issue was purely commercial in nature, which was given a criminal colour to save its own officials, who were made accused in Ghoghardiha P.S. Case No.130 of 2019, where the District Magistrate, Madhubani was the informant." 

The judgement reads: "It can be said safely that out of oblique and ulterior motive to save their own officials, the BSFC/informant lodged this case against petitioner and particularly, in view of arbitration award as passed in Request Case No. 69 of 2020, where all issues between the parties appears settled, showing all balance in favour of petitioner, the continuing with present criminal proceeding before the learned trial court qua petitioner would only amount to abuse of the process of court of law."