The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday quashed the National Security Act (NSA) detention of Aakriti Chaudhary, a 25-year-old Delhi University history graduate who has been in custody for around 5 months in connection with the Noida workers' protest of April 2026.

Allowing her habeas corpus petition challenging her detention, a Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev found that the detention was based on a "concocted story" by the state. Hence, it directed her immediate release if arrest was not warranted in any other case.

The development came after the Bench closely examined the sequence of her arrest and the issuance of notices under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and found several procedural lapses.

A detailed order in the matter is awaited.

During today's hearing, the State informed the Court that Chaudhary had been arrested at 10:56 AM on April 12, 2026 and that a notice under Section 130 BNSS had been issued to her. It is the state's specific case that she had instigated the mob to resort to arson and stone pelting.

Justice Sreedharan asked whether a notice under Section 126 BNSS had first been served.

The State replied that no notice under Section 126 had been given and that a notice under Section 130 had been issued.

The Bench then examined the sequence contemplated under the BNSS and noted that the procedure under Section 130 follows the earlier stage under Section 126. Justice Sreedharan observed thus:

"As per the notice under S. 130 BNSS, if she was willing to give a statement, she wouldn't be arrested. Ab ismei GD entry dekhiye, usko arrest karliya fir notice banaya."

The Court thus questioned the State's version on the basis of the General Diary (GD) entry, observing that the record appeared to show that Chaudhary had already been arrested before the notice was prepared. The Bench further observed:

"Yaani magistrate ke samne pesh nahi hui, arrest ho chuki thi. Agar notice pehle diya hota to GD number nahi hota ya haath se bana hota".

The Court also examined the State's contention regarding Chaudhary's alleged involvement in the violence during the workers' protest. The State submitted that people had gathered for the protest on April 11. Justice Sreedharan then pointed out:

"Yani 11 ko koi violence nahi tha. Whatever violence has happened is after her arrest".

The observation was made in light of fact that the Bench was examining whether the material relied upon by the State could actually establish Chaudhary's role in the alleged violence.

It may be noted that earlier, on Tuesday, the Court had specifically asked the State to show footage indicating whether Chaudhary had instigated protesters to indulge in stone-pelting or set vehicles on fire.

The State had sought time to produce the video, but the Bench had declined to grant further time, noting that Chaudhary had already spent five months in jail.

During yesterday's hearing, the Bench had asked the State where it was recorded that Chaudhary had called people and told them to throw stones.

The Court had also asked whether there was material showing that she had asked protesters to set vehicles on fire. When the State said that the chargesheet had been filed, Justice Sreedharan had observed thus:

“Once the chargesheet is filed, you should have seen where the witnesses have named her.”

The State then relied upon witness statements naming Chaudhary. However, the Bench specifically asked where the videography showed her allegedly instigating protesters.

Background

Chaudhary, 25, is a history graduate from Delhi University and was arrested in connection with cases arising from the Noida workers' protest.

The Uttar Pradesh Police subsequently invoked the National Security Act, 1980 against Chaudhary and activist/journalist Satyam Verma on May 13. They were among several activists arrested in cases relating to the protest.

At the time, Gautam Buddh Nagar Police Commissioner Laxmi Singh had claimed that the police possessed “strong electronic and videographic evidence” against Chaudhary, Verma and other arrested persons.

Chaudhary thereafter approached the High Court through a habeas corpus petition challenging her continued detention.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, assisted by Advocate Charlie Prakash, appeared for Choudhary.