A bench led by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma issued the stay, freezing the Division Bench judgment that had previously quashed Chaudhary’s nearly five‑month detention as illegal.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Magistrate Roopam, argued that such punitive decisions pass through multiple levels of government and his client should not be singled out, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also represented Roopam’s side. Colin Gonsalves appeared for the student activist Chaudhary.
The Supreme Court specifically stayed the operation of paragraphs 27 to 33 of the High Court’s decision and scheduled the matter for a full hearing on October 7.
The Allahabad High Court had sharply rebuked Roopam, describing the bureaucracy’s conduct as “despotic” and warning that unchecked power could turn Uttar Pradesh into an “Orwellian Dystopia”. It criticized the magistrate’s lack of application of mind to the police report and called the state’s arrest notice a “concocted story”.
The case stems from a workers’ protest in Noida between April 10 and 18, 2026, where industrial and contractual labourers demanded wage hikes and parity with neighbouring Haryana. The demonstration turned violent on April 13, and a month later the Uttar Pradesh Police invoked the NSA against Chaudhary, alleging she incited stone‑pelting and arson, and claimed to possess “strong electronic and videographic evidence”.
The High Court had granted Chaudhary’s habeas corpus petition, ordered her immediate release unless required elsewhere, and directed the salary deduction as compensation for the unlawful detention.
By staying the deduction, the Supreme Court leaves the officials’ salaries untouched for now, but the pending October hearing will determine whether the High Court’s compensation order stands, a decision that could shape the use of the NSA against student activists and the accountability of district magistrates.