How Noida workers’ protest landed a DU student in jail under NSA

On a hot April afternoon, as the war involving the United States, Israel and Iran pushed several countries to grapple with an oil and gas crisis and rising prices, workers took to the streets in Noida — one of Asia’s major planned industrial areas, with thousands of factories and manufacturing units — demanding an increase in minimum wages as the cost of living continued to rise in India.The protest was also part of growing labour unrest across the National Capital Region (NCR), coming shortly after workers in neighbouring Haryana secured a significant increase in wages.The demonstration began with workers raising slogans, skipping tasks and staging demonstrations outside their institutions. However, it took a serious turn on April 13, when the protest turned violent. Vehicles were set on fire, stones were thrown at barricades and police used tear gas to disperse the crowd. In the days that followed, domestic workers also joined the protests, raising their own demands for better wages and working conditions.The Uttar Pradesh Government responded by approving an increase of around 21% in minimum wages and issuing revised wage rates for different categories of workers by April 18.The crackdown that followed was wide-reaching, with Noida police filing one FIR, invoking charges related to rioting, arson and attempted murder against activists, workers and even journalists. By the middle of April, more than 300 people linked to the protests had reportedly been arrested.Who is Akriti Chaudhary?Akriti Chaudhary, a 25-year-old law student from Delhi University, was arrested by Noida police. She holds a postgraduate degree in history and is linked to the Progressive Artists’ League, contributing articles to Mazdoor Bigul, a Lucknow-based publication focused on workers’ rights and labour struggles.According to the police chargesheet, she played a key role in “instigating workers toward violent protest”, and they claimed to have electronic and video evidence connecting her to the violence. There were also allegations of “foreign funding involving Ms. Chaudhary and Satyam Verma”, who identifies himself as a journalist.Why was the National Security Act invoked?On May 13 — about a month after Ms. Chaudhary’s arrest — the Uttar Pradesh Police invoked the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA), against her and against Mr. Verma.The NSA is a preventive-detention law. It allows authorities to detain someone without a regular trial for an extended period if they believe the person’s activities pose a threat to national security or public order. Because it permits detention without a prior conviction, it is considerably more serious than an ordinary criminal charge.Challenging the NSA orderMs. Chaudhary applied for bail, but it was rejected several times by a sessions court in Surajpur. She then approached the Supreme Court, which did not grant her bail directly and instead directed her to approach the Allahabad High Court.She moved the Allahabad High Court challenging the detention order issued by the Noida district magistrate, pointing to the timeline of events. Her argument was that she had already been in custody since April 11, while the major violence took place on April 13. She questioned how she could have personally incited violence that occurred after she was already detained. She also argued that the allegations against her were vague, baseless and unsupported by evidence.High Court quashes detentionAfter nearly five months in custody, Ms. Chaudhary’s habeas corpus petition came before a Bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev at the Allahabad High Court.The Judges examined the timeline of events as well as the procedure followed by the authorities. One issue before the court was whether a notice under Section 126 of the BNSS (a show-cause notice) had actually been issued before she was served a notice under Section 130 of the BNSS, under which an official directs a person to execute a bond promising to keep the peace. The state had denied that any such earlier notice existed.The state’s grounds of detention also had claims that a conspiracy had been planned in Delhi in March 2026, when Ms. Chaudhary gathered with colleagues at Yogesh Swamy’s library in Karawal Nagar and “prepared the strategy of the proposed violent workers’ movement” that was later carried out first in Manesar, Haryana, and then in Gautam Buddha Nagar (Noida).Ms. Chaudhary’s petition disputed the fact, arguing that the gathering was actually the inauguration of the “Shaheed Bhagat Singh Yuva Kendra”, an educational centre for underprivileged children that had been under construction for over a year. The ceremony, she said, had been publicly announced on March 14, 2026 — 23 days before the agitation began — and was attended predominantly by children of workers and neighbourhood residents. It featured a prize distribution for painting, chess and quiz competitions, songs performed by children, and speeches by poets and intellectuals.She also pointed out that she was never arrested in connection with any agitation in Haryaran.When the court asked police to produce the video footage they claimed showed her involvement in the violence, the police sought more time.Also read: Relieved by Allahabad High Court order but my fight will go on till all workers come out, says AkritiThe court denied the request and ultimately rejected the State’s explanation for her alleged involvement, describing the State’s justification for her preventive detention as a “concocted story”. It quashed the NSA detention order and directed that she be released immediately if not required in any other case. The court also ordered Noida authorities to pay her ₹5 lakh in compensation, her lawyer Charlie Prakash and Manik Gupta told The Hindu. The detailed order is awaited.The High Court’s decision, however, did not end Ms. Chaudhary’s legal troubles. Quashing the NSA order did not automatically remove the separate criminal cases filed in connection with the April violence; hence, she remained in custody unless and until she obtained bail in those cases.