The Gautam Budh Nagar district magistrate has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court order that quashed her order to detain a Delhi University student under the National Security Act (NSA) over a workers’ protest in Noida.The high court’s September 2 order pulled up Medha Roopam over the manner in which she passed the NSA order, and ordered Rs 5 lakh compensation for the 25-year-old student, Akriti Chaudhary.The high court also cautioned that unchecked abuses of power by Uttar Pradesh police and officials risk reducing the state to an “Orwellian dystopia”. Stating that the “casual and cavalier exercise of authority” by the state through the district magistrate had “violated the constitutional rights” of the student, it ordered the Rs 5 lakh compensation to be recovered from the salaries of Roopam and “all such other officers who may have been responsible, right down to the SHO”.The high court said the conduct of the district magistrate was “worthy of derision” and added that she should have examined how the general law was inadequate against a female student activist with no previous criminal record, agitating for the rights of labourers, and that the material on record did not disclose that she had in any way incited violence.‘Desire to deter others’ from speaking their mindThe ruling said the material “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 said.The court also elaborated on the relationship between the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service with that of Uttar Pradesh residents “whom they serve” and said it defined the existence of the rule of law or its absence, as the case may be.Story continues below this ad“The officers are endowed with immense powers by law and for very good reasons, as they bear the responsibility of improving the lot of the citizens by maintaining that delicate balance of upholding the constitutional and legal rights, dignity, honour and welfare of the citizens by just and good governance, while ensuring the stability of the State and the unity and integrity of the nation,” it noted.The high court, however, highlighted that “with great power comes great responsibility” and called for the bureaucracy to introspect about the extent to which such power was being exerted.“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. The IAS and IPS attract the finest talent in the country from amongst its youth who occupy its hallowed offices after a gruelling three stage selection process after which, those selected are considered to be the best of the best that India has to offer,” the ruling said.The order said that before they enter active service, they swear an oath affirming that they shall bear true allegiance to India and to the Constitution of India as by law established, that they will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, and that they will carry out the duties of their office loyally, honestly and with impartiality.Story continues below this ad“They 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,” it added.‘Safety valve in a pressure cooker’The high court called upon the state to realise that “every society has its own tensions and its share of disagreements with the Government in the manner in which it functions and allowing agitations is like the safety valve in a pressure cooker, which ensures that the building up of pressure is released rather than preventing such agitations and bottling up feelings accumulated to such an extent that when people do spill out onto the streets, violence becomes inevitable and difficult for the law enforcement agencies to control and contain”.The ruling clarified that any detention under the NSA was an exception and not a “substitute to ensure that a person who may receive bail on account of merits of his case” remains detained in custody under a “concocted reasoning” by the state.Coming down heavily on the district magistrate, the bench termed the grounds of detention as “repetitive, speculative and only an opinion based without referring to a “shred of evidence/material” in support of sustaining those opinions.Story continues below this ad“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 said.Free speech with no threat to public orderAny exercise of such a discretion that directly violates a person’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be exercised lightly based on surmises, biases, conjectures, and opinions, the court added.The court ruled that detaining someone under the NSA requires strong evidence—not just assumptions or guesses. A court must review the district magistrate’s decision and be fully satisfied that, without immediate detention, the person would almost certainly disrupt public order or threaten 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 court added.Story continues below this adFinding no material to indicate that the agitation would be violent or challenge the state’s authority, the court said, “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.”The court reminded the state that a peaceful agitation where people assemble without arms or ammunition can still be scuttled by mischievous elements, who may be sent by parties interested in ensuring that such an agitation is broken. It said such elements may indulge in acts of violence which can be later attributed to the entire group, which was “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 realise 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,” the ruling said.