A lawyers’ organisation has asked Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to examine the listing of Gautam Buddh Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam’s Supreme Court plea, alleging that the matter was taken up out of turn by a bench not assigned preventive-detention cases under the prevailing roster.The Lawyers Association for Constitution, in an open letter dated September 24, questioned how Roopam’s challenge to an Allahabad High Court judgment came before a bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and N. Kotiswar Singh. The association alleged that the case appeared to have been specially assigned to that bench and said the arrangement raised concerns about equal treatment and transparency in case allocation.
The Supreme Court’s roster effective from July 13 assigns habeas corpus and preventive-detention matters, including special leave petitions arising from such cases in High Courts, to the first four benches headed respectively by the Chief Justice, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice M. M. Sundresh. Justice Sharma’s regular roster does not include that category, though it permits matters specially assigned to his bench.
The Chief Justice, as master of the roster, has administrative authority over allocation of cases and can make special assignments. No public explanation has been issued for the allocation of Roopam’s case, and the lawyers’ body’s assertion of preferential treatment remains an allegation.
The association also pointed to connected cases arising from the same Noida workers’ protest that are pending before a bench headed by Justice Nagarathna. It questioned why Roopam’s petition was not placed before that bench or one of the other benches holding the subject roster.
Roopam had approached the Supreme Court against a September 2 judgment of the Allahabad High Court concerning the detention of 25-year-old Delhi University history graduate Akriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act. Chaudhary had been arrested in connection with an April protest involving workers in Noida and was subsequently detained under the NSA.
The High Court quashed the detention and criticised the district administration’s handling of the case. It also directed payment of ₹5 lakh compensation to Chaudhary, with the amount to be recovered from Roopam’s salary, while making adverse observations against the district magistrate.
On September 23, the bench of Justices Sharma and Singh passed an interim order while hearing challenges filed by Roopam and the Uttar Pradesh government. The following day, the Supreme Court revised the wording of that order to clarify that it had not stayed the High Court’s decision quashing Chaudhary’s detention.
The revised order stated that the stay applied to paragraphs 27 to 33 of the High Court judgment, covering the strictures against Roopam and the compensation direction. The court said those portions would remain stayed until the matter was heard on merits.
The distinction was significant because initial accounts of the September 23 proceedings had suggested that the High Court judgment had been stayed more broadly. The revised order left the quashing of Chaudhary’s NSA detention undisturbed while protecting Roopam, for the time being, from the adverse observations and salary recovery.
The lawyers’ association separately objected to the muting of the video-conferencing audio during the hearing. It said restricting access to an open-court proceeding involving the actions of a public official raised additional transparency concerns. Court reporters following proceedings remotely were unable to hear portions of the hearing while the audio was muted.
The association noted in its letter that Roopam is the daughter of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and argued that the circumstances could create a perception of special treatment. That family relationship does not by itself establish any procedural impropriety, and there has been no judicial finding that the listing was improper.
The letter urged the Chief Justice to address the concerns surrounding assignment and access to the proceedings. As of Friday, no public response from the Chief Justice or the Supreme Court administration to the association’s letter had been announced.
