‘Wrong Precedent’: Lawyers’ Body Protests Supreme Court’s Handling Of Noida DM’s Plea

THE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION FOR CONSTITUTION (‘LAFC’) has written to the Chief Justice of India questioning the special listing and muted live proceedings in the case of Noida District Magistrate Medha Roopam.

LAFC has sent an open letter to the Chief Justice of India protesting the listing of two petitions filed over strictures passed against Gautam Buddh Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam. The letter, dated September 24, objects to the matter being placed before a particular bench outside the ordinary roster, and to the muting of the video conferencing feed during the hearing.

“The out-of-turn listing of the case has received special treatment and tends to set a wrong precedent,” the LAFC wrote. The letter noted that Roopam “also happens to be the daughter of the Chief Election Commissioner of India,” namely Gyanesh Kumar.

The underlying case

The dispute traces back to protests by workers in Noida demanding wage revisions. A student, Akriti Chaudhary, was detained under the National Security Act in connection with the unrest. The Allahabad High Court quashed her detention and directed Roopam to pay Rs 5 lakh compensation from her own salary. Paragraphs 27 to 33 of that judgment recorded strictures against the DM, holding that she “desired to set an example” out of Chaudhary “to deter others from exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression in public spaces in support of labourers.”

Roopam and the Uttar Pradesh government moved the Supreme Court against the order. The petitions, SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 56202/2026 and SLP (Crl.) No. 18010/2026, came up before a bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice N K Singh. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the state, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for Roopam, and Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves for Chaudhary.

Muted proceedings, then a clarified order

During the September 23 hearing, the bench muted the audio of the video conferencing feed, cutting off media access since reporters cannot enter the courtroom in person. The Court reserved orders on interim relief that day.

Later on September 23, the Court stayed paragraphs 27 to 33 of the High Court judgment, the portion recording strictures and directing salary recovery. Notice was issued, and the matter was listed for October 7. The Court clarified that the stay did not extend to the quashing of Chaudhary’s NSA detention itself, which stands. On September 24, the Court revised its order to make this distinction explicit, specifying that the stay operates only on the adverse remarks against the officer and the compensation direction.

The LAFC’s objection

While the LAFC’s in its letter has not disputed the merits of the stay, it has raised complaints such as that the case did not fall before this bench under the prevailing roster for NSA matters, that it appears to have been specially assigned, and that muting the live feed in a case “important for media and the public” undermines the openness that video conferencing is meant to provide. “The special listing before a particular bench has also not enhanced confidence in the judicial process,” the letter states.