Question on out-of-turn listing in Supreme Court in Noida DM Medha Rupam's case

Questions regarding out-of-turn listing in Supreme Court on petition related to Noida DM Medha Rupam

Published 1 minute ago

Reading Time: 7 minutes

There is a controversy in the Supreme Court regarding 'out-of-turn' listing in the case of Noida DM Medha Rupam.

There was a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the recovery of Rs 5 lakh from Medha Rupam and other officials for the detention of Delhi University student Aakriti Choudhary under NSA during the labor movement in Noida. This order of recovery was given by Allahabad High Court in the beginning of September.

Medha Rupam's case was listed in the court of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, ignoring the roster of the Supreme Court.

The petitions related to Medha Rupam were heard by the bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice NK Singh on September 23, whereas according to the roster applicable from July 13, 2026, the hearing of cases related to preventive detention was not within their jurisdiction.

This case is even more important because other custody petitions related to the same protest of workers are already pending before the bench headed by Justice BV Nagarathna.

There is also a controversy in the Supreme Court regarding muting the debate during this hearing. No reason has been given as to why this was done.

Lawyers' organization Lawyers Association for Constitution has written an open letter to Supreme Court Chief Justice Surya Kant criticizing the change in the roster in Medha Rupam's case.

It has said that listing before a special bench has not increased public confidence in the judicial process.

Skip to Most Read Skip to content

most read

finished

Lawyers Association for Constitution has written that this case is also important because the petitioner is a public servant and the daughter of the Chief Election Commissioner of India.

Well-known Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan also mentioned the case on the social media platform and wrote that what is going on in the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Saurav Das, co-convenor of Cockroach Janata Party, wrote that this kind of case in the judiciary does not raise hopes of impartial justice.

What is the case of Medha Rupam?

In its decision, the bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma put a stay on the decision of Allahabad High Court which had said that Noida DM Medha Rupam and other officials should give a compensation of Rs 5 lakh to Delhi University student Aakriti Choudhary from their salary.

The Allahabad High Court said that it was illegal to detain Aakriti under the National Security Act (NSA) during the Noida labor movement in April this year.

But the bench of Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice NK Singh, while hearing the petition of Medha Rupam, put a stay on the adverse remarks of the Allahabad High Court and the decision to grant compensation.

However, the order of Allahabad High Court in the case of arrest of Akriti Choudhary under NSA will remain intact.

Why were questions raised regarding the hearing?

More than the decision of the bench, there is more discussion about the allegation that Medha Rupam was helped by changing the bench and through out-of-turn listing.

Lawyers Association for Constitution has written to the CJI, "The hearing in the court is a public hearing. It is provided to lawyers, litigants and journalists through video conferencing. The case was about the arrest of students under NSA during the movement in support of workers. This was an important matter for journalists and the public. Despite this, access to video conferencing was stopped.

“This is a serious matter and the Lawyers Association for the Constitution opposes giving special treatment to anyone in this matter. This is a matter of great concern for the public.

skip ahead podcast

Dinbhar: Same voice, new style

Big news from the country and the world that made headlines.

episode

finished

Saurav Das, co-convenor of Cockroach Janata Party, has written on this issue on X, "Supreme Court judge Justice Satish Chandra Sharma is just two months away from retirement."

“If you remember, the Allahabad High Court had imposed a fine of Rs 5 lakh on Noida DM and Gyanesh Kumar's daughter Medha Rupam for allegedly irrationally imposing NSA against a student activist's Noida labor protest. This order was challenged in the Supreme Court.

News portal Live Law reported that the case of Gyanesh Kumar's daughter was given to the bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma in violation of the roster system, rules and conventions of the Supreme Court. This matter should have gone before the bench of Justice Nagarathna.

"When this case was heard two days ago, Justice Sharma's bench stopped the audio of the Supreme Court proceedings. This is extremely unusual and is almost never done. This is worrisome. It was not explained by the judge as to why such an extraordinary step was taken in the case of Gyanesh Kumar's daughter?

Commenting on this matter, Prashant Bhushan wrote on social media platform What exactly is happening in the Supreme Court?

What did Allahabad High Court say in the case of Aakriti Choudhary?

Earlier this month, Justice Achal Sachdev of Allahabad High Court had imposed a fine on the police and administrative officials for the detention of 24-year-old Delhi University law student and social activist Aakriti Choudhary.

The bench had termed it as 'blatant fabrication of facts' and directed that its decision be made a part of the service records of these officers.

In this decision, the detention of Akriti Choudhary under the National Security Act (NSA) was said to be wrong.

Under the NSA, detention of a person without trial is allowed in cases related to threat to national security or public order.

But the court also made it clear that preventive detention under the NSA is an exception, and cannot be used as an alternative to the common law.

A two-member bench of Justices Sachdev and Sreedharan had ordered a compensation of Rs 5 lakh to Aakriti Chaudhary.

The court ordered that this amount be recovered from the salaries of the District Magistrate of Gautam Buddha Nagar (Noida) and other officers responsible for issuing detention orders.

Aakriti was associated with these protests while reporting the protests in Noida for the newspaper 'Mazdoor Bigul'. Aakriti was also working as a volunteer with organizations related to students and workers' rights for the last two-three years.

When asked the reason for joining the workers' protest, Aakriti had said through her friend, "The protestors are the people who build our country. They are demanding very basic things, like relief from inflation and exploitation."