The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday (September 16, 2026) sought responses from the Centre, the Uttar Pradesh government, and the Gautam Buddh Nagar District Magistrate on a habeas corpus petition challenging the preventive detention of journalist Satyam Verma under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, in connection with the April 2026 Noida workers’ protest.
In the plea, Mr. He has sought quashing of the orders, his immediate release and compensation for alleged illegal detention. A key contention in the petition is that the detention order wrongly places Mr. Explained | Journalist Satyam Verma’s bail plea in Noida workers’ protest case: What is the principle of parity in bail cases? It also states that Mr. He also challenged the reliance on statements allegedly made by a co-accused or witness, Mangal, while in police custody. The plea argues that these statements could not form the basis for preventive detention. In the petition, Mr. It states that his earnings as a translator and publisher were received through formal banking channels and disclosed in income tax returns. Mr. The development comes a day after another Bench of the High Court deferred Mr.
Verma challenged his detention order passed by the District Magistrate on May 12, along with the State government’s subsequent approval and confirmation orders. Verma at the site of violence in Noida on April 13. The plea claims that CCTV footage and call detail records show that he was in Lucknow that day and was detained by the Hasanganj Police around 3.30 p.m. Verma was not named in any of the 11 FIRs relied upon for his detention. He has also challenged his initial arrest on the intervening night of April 17 and 18, alleging that plainclothes personnel detained him without an arrest memo and without informing his family. Verma’s bail plea in one of the 11 criminal cases linked to the protest. The State sought time to file its objections, including on the issue of parity with a co-accused who was granted bail on June 23.
Verma also disputes the authorities’ alleged characterisation of his professional income as “riot funding”. Verma also argued that the workers’ protest concerned minimum-wage demands and did not constitute a threat to “public order” warranting preventive detention under the NSA.
The petition further alleged that the investigating officer failed to place the CCTV footage and call records before the detaining authority. The petition also relied on an earlier High Court ruling quashing the preventive detention of co-detainee Akriti Chaudhary in connection with the same agitation.
The next date of hearing in the matter is October 7. A Bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev issued notices to the authorities concerned.
