The Supreme Court Wednesday stayed the operation of the September 2 order of the Allahabad High Court which quashed the detention of Delhi University student Akriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act, passed strictures against Gautam Buddha Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam and directed that Rs 5 lakh be paid from her salary as compensation to Chaudhary.Lodged in Kasna Jail, Chaudhary was arrested in connection with a protest by workers in Noida in April this year.A bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice N K Singh stayed the High Court’s adverse remarks against Roopam including that her “conduct… is worthy of derision” and that she “is guilty of violating her oath of allegiance” to the Constitution.Also Read | Allahabad High Court shows that dissent is the oxygen of democracyThe bench said, “After hearing learned Senior Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that till the matter is heard on merits, the operation of the impugned judgment, particularly para Nos. 27 to 33 shall remain stayed.” These paragraphs relate to the strictures against Roopam and the direction for the Rs 5-lakh compensation payment from her salary.Earlier in the day, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Roopam, told the bench that the High Court passed strictures without hearing Roopam.“Without notice to the DM, Noida, some strictures are passed and a cost of Rs 5 lakh is imposed,” he said. “Even on merits, the role of DM is completely different. This, in my respectful submission, was not called for.”“It is one thing to quash the order of detention, quite another to castigate the officer who has passed the order,” Mehta said, adding that “there are several layers before the DM forms an opinion. There are several administrative, hierarchical layers.”Story continues below this adAlso Read | Court relief to DU student charged with NSA to be challenged: Solicitor GeneralRoughly 10 minutes into the submissions in the courtroom, the video was muted.Appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi said the High Court order was “completely uncalled for”.On the detention of Chaudhary under NSA, he said, “The HC should have independently assessed this order which is of May 12. It was to maintain public order, not law and order.”Also Read | Student’s arrest over Noida protest ‘arbitrary’, she will get Rs 5 lakhSenior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, who appeared for Chaudhary, said one of the conditions for her detention was that she instigated the mob, but that was not true as she was in police custody even before the violence erupted.Story continues below this adHe said the High Court had asked the state multiple times to produce Chaudhary’s alleged inflammatory speech but it did not. “Not one microgram of evidence, but 99 per cent flamboyant narrative was given,” he said.The bench said the High Court only had to see if the procedure was followed and not go into the merits.