Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court on Wednesday issued notices to the Union of India, the Uttar Pradesh government and the Gautam Budh Nagar DM in a habeas corpus petition filed by journalist Satyam Verma, challenging his preventive detention under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, in connection with his alleged involvement in the April 2026 workers’ protest in Noida.A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev sought responses from the respondents and fixed October 7 as the next date of hearing.Verma has challenged the detention order dated May 12, 2026, issued by GB Nagar DM under Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the NSA. He has also questioned the state government’s approval order dated May 20, 2026, passed under Section 3(4), and the subsequent confirmation order dated June 10, 2026, under Section 12(1) of the Act.The petition seeks quashing of the detention order and related proceedings, besides seeking Verma’s immediate release and compensation for his alleged illegal detention.The principal ground raised in the habeas corpus petition is that the detention order is based on what the petitioner describes as a “factually impossible” allegation that Verma participated in violence in Noida on April 13, 2026. According to the plea, CCTV footage and Call Detail Records (CDRs) establish that Verma was nearly 500 kilometres away in Lucknow, where he was allegedly detained by Hasanganj police at 2.14 pm on the same day.Describing this as an “ironclad alibi”, the petition argues that a preventive detention order founded on “physically impossible and demonstrably false premises” is liable to be quashed. It further alleges that the investigating officer deliberately withheld the CDRs and CCTV footage from Hasanganj police station from the detaining authority, thereby vitiating its “subjective satisfaction”.The plea also contends that Verma was not named in any of the 11 FIRs relied upon by the state to justify the detention.According to the petition, the detention order is substantially based on statements allegedly made by a co-accused or witness, identified as Mangal, while in police custody.The petitioner argues that such statements are legally inadmissible and could not constitute valid material for forming the subjective satisfaction required under preventive detention law.The petition further disputes the state’s characterisation of Verma’s professional earnings as “riot funding”. It maintains that his income over nearly two decades was earned through his professional work, routed through formal banking channels and duly disclosed in income tax returns.Another ground raised is that the material relied upon by the authorities, even if accepted in its entirety, pertains to a localised labour dispute over minimum wages.The plea argues that such circumstances fall within the ambit of “law and order” and do not amount to a threat to “public order”, a prerequisite for invoking the NSA. It alleges that the Act was used to “crush a spontaneous and lawful labour demand”.The petition also alleges violation of Verma’s fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c), 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution. It contends that his political ideology, association with the Revolutionary Workers Party of India (RWPI), and profession as a translator and publisher were sought to be criminalised.Further, the plea alleges that the state government’s approval order dated May 20, 2026, was never served on Verma, depriving him of an effective opportunity to make a representation as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.The petitioner has also challenged the grounds of detention for allegedly restricting his right to submit a representation to a 12-day period and for stating that any representation would not be considered after government approval had been granted.The plea additionally alleges that Verma’s statutory representation dated May 21, 2026, was deliberately suppressed and not placed before the Advisory Board, despite Section 11(1) of the NSA requiring its consideration.The petition also questions the Advisory Board proceedings held on May 26, alleging that Verma received less than 18 hours’ notice and that the hearing was conducted at night, leaving him insufficient time to prepare his defence or seek assistance.Verma has relied on an earlier Allahabad High Court order in the case of co-detenue Akriti Chaudhary, in which the court had reportedly quashed a similarly worded preventive detention order issued on the same date by the same authority in connection with the same agitation.On grounds of parity, the petition claims that Verma’s case rests on an “even stronger footing” and therefore warrants similar relief.The petition further challenges Verma’s initial arrest during the intervening night of April 17-18, alleging that it was carried out by plainclothes personnel without preparation of an arrest memo and without informing his family members.Through the present habeas corpus petition, Verma has sought quashing of the detention order dated May 12, 2026, along with the subsequent approval and confirmation orders, and has requested the court to direct his immediate release and award compensation for his alleged illegal detention.
