New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned whether Gautam Buddha Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam could be singled out for personal financial liability in the detention of Delhi University student activist Akriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act (NSA), when the decision-making process had involved several authorities and multiple layers of scrutiny.
A bench comprising Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice N.K. Singh was hearing Roopam’s challenge to an Allahabad High Court judgment that had quashed Chaudhary’s detention and directed payment of ₹5 lakh compensation.
The Supreme Court ultimately reserved its order on the plea.
Supreme Court Examines Individual Responsibility
The principal issue before the apex court was whether Medha Roopam, who ultimately signed the detention order in her capacity as District Magistrate, could be held individually responsible for the compensation when the material forming the basis of the detention had passed through several authorities before reaching her.
The Court’s questioning focused on the structure of the NSA detention process and the role played by different authorities at various stages.
During the hearing, the bench observed that if the decision-making process involved several authorities, the District Magistrate could not simply be separated from or isolated from the other stages of the process.
“We can’t isolate her,” the Court remarked.
The observation was made while considering the submissions concerning the various levels through which the material relating to Chaudhary had passed before the detention order was issued.
Report Passed Through SHO, DCP and Commissioner
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, submitted that the report concerning Chaudhary did not directly originate with the District Magistrate.
According to the submissions, the material moved through the Station House Officer (SHO), the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) and the Police Commissioner before reaching the District Magistrate.
Rohatgi also referred to the subsequent examination of the detention by the NSA Advisory Board.
The submission sought to place the District Magistrate’s role within the larger statutory and administrative chain through which the detention proposal had progressed.
Solicitor General Points to Five Stages
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Medha Roopam, argued that the detention process involved five stages of consideration before the District Magistrate passed the detention order.
He submitted that the District Magistrate’s statutory responsibility was to independently form an opinion after the prescribed safeguards and procedures had been followed.
The argument essentially centred on the distinction between the authority that formally passes a detention order and the broader process through which the material supporting that order is generated, examined and forwarded.
The Supreme Court’s questioning indicated that the Court was examining whether personal financial liability could be imposed on the District Magistrate in isolation when the material had undergone scrutiny at several levels.
Allahabad High Court Had Quashed Detention
The proceedings before the Supreme Court arise from an earlier judgment of the Allahabad High Court concerning Akriti Chaudhary’s detention under the NSA.
The High Court had quashed the detention order and directed payment of ₹5 lakh compensation.
It had further directed that the compensation be recovered from the salaries of the officials held responsible for the detention process. The recovery direction covered the officials involved at different stages, including the District Magistrate and police officers connected with the preparation and processing of the detention proposal.
The direction extended down to the SHO who had prepared the initial report concerning Chaudhary.
Adverse Remarks Also Directed Into Service Records
Apart from the compensation, the Allahabad High Court had directed that its displeasure against the District Magistrate and other officials involved in the detention process be recorded in their service records.
Thus, the High Court judgment had consequences beyond the quashing of the detention itself, including a monetary recovery from officials and an adverse service-record direction.
Medha Roopam subsequently approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s directions.
Focus Shifts to How NSA Decision Was Taken
The Supreme Court hearing has brought the structure of the detention decision-making process into focus.
The submissions before the bench highlighted that the District Magistrate’s order came after material had passed through several authorities. At the same time, the submissions on behalf of Roopam stressed that the District Magistrate was required to independently apply her mind and form the statutory opinion before issuing the order.
The Court therefore considered whether the fact that the District Magistrate formally issued the detention order was, by itself, sufficient to make her individually liable for the compensation ordered by the High Court.
The reference to the multiple stages of scrutiny and the NSA Advisory Board was central to the arguments presented before the bench.
Supreme Court Reserves Order
After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court reserved its order on Medha Roopam’s challenge.
The final order will address the challenge to the Allahabad High Court’s directions concerning the ₹5 lakh compensation and the liability attributed to the officials involved in the detention process.
The proceedings also leave open the broader question of how individual responsibility should be assessed when an NSA detention order is preceded by scrutiny and recommendations involving multiple police and administrative authorities.
The Supreme Court’s observation that “We can’t isolate her” came specifically in the context of examining the District Magistrate’s individual responsibility within that larger decision-making chain. The final determination will depend on the order to be pronounced by the Court.
