It’s payback time for Noida District Magistrate Medha Roopam and other officials of Noida administration. Allahabad High Court has come down heavily on Roopam over the detention of a student activist under stringent National Security Act over alleged role in the labourers’ unrest in the city a few months ago.
However, the high court stressed that they must remember that their loyalty is towards the Constitution and not the political executive. The high court was particularly critical of the conduct of the District Magistrate Medha Roopam, who had passed the NSA detention order. It held that where the police report contained only allegations without credible supporting material, the District Magistrate was expected to examine the record before deciding whether the stringent provisions of the NSA were warranted. It stressed that the grounds of detention must traverse beyond mere allegations and opinion. It further directed that the court’s displeasure against the DM and police officers involved in preparing the dossier be recorded in their service records.
Because they bear responsibility for upholding the constitutional and legal rights, dignity, honour and welfare of citizens, it said officers are entrusted with immense powers. Quashing the detention of 24-year-old Delhi University student and activist Akriti Chaudhary, the Allahabad High Court has made strong observations against the Uttar Pradesh administration. The court has also directed a compensation of Rs 5 lakh for Chaudhary who spent five months in detention before the court relief last week. In its 15-page order dated September 2, the high court made several stinging observations on the roles of the bureaucracy and the police.
The court has directed that the amount “should be recovered from the salary of the Gautam Buddha Nagar DM and other officers right down to the SHO”. It further said that officers are servants who serve the people reminding them that “people are the masters in a democracy”. In this backdrop, the high court warned that when bureaucrats and police officers ignore their oath and act contrary to it, people may view them as an “oppressive vestige of the British Empire”, creating an environment of civil unrest. The court held that the grounds of detention were “repetitive, speculative and are only opinion-based”, without a shred of evidence or material supporting those opinions.
