|
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its order on Gautam Buddha Nagar District Magistrate (DM) Medha Roopams plea challenging the Allahabad High Court judgment that quashed the NSA detention of student activist Akriti Chaudhary and directed that Rs 5 lakh be paid to her as compensation by deducting the amount from Roopams salary. The HC had also passed strictures against the DM over her handling of the detention proceedings.
A bench of Justices SC Sharma and NK Singh heard arguments on whether Roopam could be held personally liable when the detention proposal had moved through several levels of the administration. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Roopam, submitted that the DM had acted on material placed before her after it had gone through the SHO, DCP and Commissioner. They also pointed out that the NSA Advisory Board had subsequently examined the detention. We cant isolate her as fine of Rs 5 lakh, the Court orally observed, questioning the basis for putting the monetary liability on Roopam when the decision apparently followed a multi-level process. Roopam is seeking removal of the strictures and also the direction requiring recovery of Rs 5 lakh from her salary. Rohatgi argued that the detention followed allegations of violent labour agitation and referred to material recovered from a mobile phone, including WhatsApp exchanges, which the authorities relied upon to allege that Chaudhary was involved in inflammatory activity. Mehta submitted that the DM was only one part of a five-stage process and had formed her opinion after the prescribed safeguards were followed. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for Chaudhary, disputed the States case. He argued that the detention grounds did not establish how Chaudhary had actually contributed to the alleged disturbance of public order. He questioned the material relied upon by the authorities, including WhatsApp conversations, and submitted that the State could not demonstrate sufficient material connecting her with the alleged violence. The bench also questioned the material supporting the detention. Can we have any intelligence report on that? it asked during the exchange. The Court further asked on what basis the High Court had interfered with the detention order and noted that the DM was not the only authority involved in the process. Gonsalves submitted that Chaudhary had been accused of instigating the agitation. He also told the Court that Chaudhary had started a library for poor and deprived children. The Solicitor General submitted that the Court should examine whether the procedural safeguards governing preventive detention had been complied with. He urged the bench to remove the adverse observations against Roopam as well as direction for Rs 5 lakh deduction. (ANI)
|
