Noida Workers Protest: Madras High Court Refuses To Examine Legality Of UP Police's Arrest In Trichy Despite Lack Of Transit Remand

The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the Magistrate, Gautham Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, who, despite knowing that there was no valid transit remand, had remanded the accused. The court thus held that if it went into the validity of the custody and arrest, it would have to necessarily go into the merits of the order passed by the remand magistrate in Uttar Pradesh. The bench noted that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to go into the merits, and the same would be against the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

“In our considered view, even assuming that the detenue has been removed from Tamil Nadu without transit warrant and produced before concerned remand magistrate, fact remains that the remand magistrate, in spite of being informed that there was no valid transit remand, has passed a remand order. Therefore, if we go into the legality of custody and remand, we will have to necessarily go into the legality or other wise of order by remand magistrate. That will be beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Apart from that, we also take into consideration, the latest judgement of apex court, wherein it was held where the accused person has been remanded to judicial custody, what can be tested thereafter is only the order of remand of magistrate and at that stage, the court will not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 and issue habeas corpus,” the court said.

“In light of above discussion, we do not intent to go into the legality or otherwise of custody and arrest of the detenue and leave it open to the petitioner to move an appropriate petition before concerned court and seek for appropriate remedy as per law. Except giving this liberty, we're not inclined to go into the merits of the court. HCP is disposed of accordingly,” the court observed.

Background

On April 13, 2026, a demonstration in Noida led by a large number of factory workers had turned violent, after the protestors set fire to vehicles and pelted stones. More than 350 people were arrested and seven FIRs were registered. A case had also been registered against Aditya Anand, detenue, under Sections 191(1), 191(2), 115(2), 121(1), and 121(2), 351(3), and 352, of BNS and Sections 61(2) and 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act for allegedly masterminding and orchestrating the violent activities.

According to reports, Aditya was allegedly absconding after an FIR was registered against him. The Gautam Buddh Nagar Court had issued a Non-Bailable Warrant against Aditya. On April 18, Aditya was apprehended by the Railway Police Force in Tiruchirapalli, who then handed him over to the UP Police.

Challenging his arrest and subsequent remand, Aditya's brother had moved the Madras High Court with a habeas corpus plea. A compensation of Rs 25 Lakh was also sought for the illegal detention.

It was submitted that Aditya had urged the workers to claim their right in a responsible and disciplined manner but this was distorted and sensationalised by the media. On 18 April at 11:58 AM, Aditya's mother received a phone call informing her that Aditya had been arrested from Tiruchirappalli and that he would be taken back to Noida after completing legal formalities.

The petitioner submitted that the Transit Remand Application was returned by the Judicial Magistrate, Trichy, declining transit remand till the defective application was cured and represented in accordance with the established protocol of inter-state arrest and remand. While so, the UP Police, without getting a transit remand, removed Aditya from Tamil Nadu and took him to the Gautam Buddh Nagar court where he was remanded.

The petitioner argued that the arrest, which was conducted by the authorities of RPF and by investigating agencies of another state, without providing the arrest memo and written grounds of arrest, strikes at the very heart of Article 22 (1) and Article 22(2) of the Constitution and other mandatory safeguards provided under Section 187, 58, and 35 of the BNSS. It was thus argued that the whole foundation of the arrest, and the ensuing transit and remand was patently illegal, null and void.

The court, though orally agreed that the arrest appeared to not be in accordance with law, also noted that if it had to go into the legality of the arrest, it will have to interfere with the remand order of the Judicial Magistrate, Gautham Buddh Court. Noting that the court did not have the necessary territorial jurisdiction to look into the same, the court was not inclined to go into the validity of the arrest.

“If we ultimately hold that the transit was not proper, what will happen to the subsequent orders there? It will have to be challenged before the Allahabad High Court. We're clear that there is an illegality. But we're on the jurisdiction,” the court orally remarked.

The court thus disposed the plea, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate court for remedies.

Counsel for Petitioner: D Geetha

Case Title: Keshaw Anand v The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 185

Case No: HCP (MD) 566 of 2026