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. 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, according to the plea. 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.
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. 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 detention order is substantially based on statements allegedly made by a co-accused or witness, identified as Mangal, while in police custody, according to the petition.
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.
Court Ruling Influences Preventive Detention Case
In a significant development, Verma has cited a recent ruling from the Allahabad High Court regarding co-detenue Akriti Chaudhary. The court had annulled a preventive detention order that was similarly phrased and issued on the same date by the same authority, relating to the same protest. This ruling may impact the ongoing legal proceedings surrounding Verma’s case, suggesting a potential precedent for challenging preventive detention measures linked to public dissent.