Like her father, India’s Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, his daughter has now made headlines. Medha Rupam, district magistrate (DM) of Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh’s most important district, has become embroiled in controversy just as her father has. In an Allahabad High Court ruling over what the court called a case of using a cannon to kill a mosquito, 500,000 rupees in compensation will now be deducted from her salary.
That’s not all. Over this extraordinary case of someone being unlawfully detained for five months under the National Security Act (NSA), the High Court justices have also ordered that the court’s ruling and observations be entered into Medha Rupam’s service record. The ruling ordering compensation deducted from a government bureaucrat’s salary is not entirely unprecedented, but it is certainly exemplary. The court believes this will help curb recklessness within the bureaucracy and police administration, forcing them to remain loyal to the law and the constitution.
Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has been in the opposition’s crosshairs for some time. He has become embroiled in controversy over launching the Special Intensive Revision, or “SIR,” in the name of correcting voter rolls nationwide. Names of 100 million voters across various states have already been removed from voter lists. Just before West Bengal’s election, 10 million voters were removed this way. Another 2.7 million voters’ names remain under consideration by various tribunals. The opposition alleges the Election Commission is selectively removing names of voters loyal to opposition parties under the guise of SIR — particularly targeting minority Muslim names — benefiting the ruling BJP in the process. There is no way to challenge this, since under central law, election commissioners cannot face punitive action over any election-related decision.
Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s daughter is Medha Rupam. She is the district magistrate of Gautam Buddh Nagar, adjacent to Delhi in Uttar Pradesh — a district better known as Noida. Her appointment to such an important district at just 35 years old in 2025 drew considerable comment, with much discussion about her father’s influence. What the Allahabad High Court’s ruling has now said about her, the way she was reprimanded, and the order to deduct the fine from her salary will certainly remain a dark chapter in her career. A few months ago, workers in Noida’s industrial belt on Delhi’s outskirts had launched a movement demanding higher wages and other benefits. Akriti was a supporter of that movement. That workers’ movement turned violent in April 2026. Uttar Pradesh police alleged that Akriti Chowdhury, a Bengali student at Delhi University, had incited the workers’ movement to turn violent. On that allegation, Akriti was arrested, and various sections of the National Security Act were invoked against her. Under that law, she was also detained without trial for five months. A total of 11 cases were also filed against her.
On Sept. 2, the Allahabad High Court ordered the case brought against Akriti under the National Security Act quashed. A division bench of Justice Atul Sridharan and Justice Achal Sachdeva, dismissing the NSA case, said Akriti had been unlawfully detained. Police could not prove a single one of the allegations brought against her. They could not produce any evidence showing she had incited workers to violent conduct. Moreover, it emerged that police had arrested Akriti even before the workers’ unrest began. In their ruling, the two justices leveled serious allegations against District Magistrate Medha Rupam, saying that rather than remaining loyal to the constitution, she had sought to remain loyal to the political administration. They said she had, out of a desire to set an example, allowed sections of the National Security Act to be invoked against Akriti. The justices said police and bureaucrats must remember they are accountable to the constitution, not to anyone else. They should not conduct themselves in a manner suggesting they have become instruments of repression, as in the British colonial era.
Citing renowned novelist George Orwell’s famous novel “1984,” the justices said in sharp language that if this continues, Uttar Pradesh will increasingly turn into an “Orwellian dystopian society.” The state, they said, would become a “completely life-consuming state.”
The justices did not stop at quashing the NSA case alone; they also ordered Akriti be paid 500,000 rupees in compensation. The court’s ruling said District Magistrate Medha Rupam had violated her constitutional obligations by obstructing the right to freedom of expression. Police officers had committed the same offense. The 500,000 rupees to be paid to Akriti as compensation must be deducted from the salaries of Medha and the other officers. The state will not pay the fine. The court’s ruling and observations must also be entered into Medha’s service report and record.
Medha, daughter of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, is a former student of St. Stephen’s College, Delhi, and a former national-level shooter. She is Noida’s first female district magistrate. Like her father, she too has now become embroiled in controversy. While Gyanesh Kumar is, under the law, beyond the reach of the courts, his daughter Medha could not escape the court’s wrath. Instead, the Allahabad High Court’s ruling now stands entered into her service record.