Noida Workers Protest : Law Student Approaches Supreme Court Alleging Police Harassment

During the hearing of a case related to the Noida workers' protest, Advocate Shahrukh Alam today flagged before the Supreme Court "abuse of process" against a student protestor by Uttar Pradesh police.

The advocate claimed that the petitioner, a first year law student, was arrested in 11 FIRs after the protest and was being harassed by the police on his alleged acquaintance with another person, a driver, who had been arrested over sharing of inciteful messages. She claimed that there was no material to support the police's allegation that the petitioner was the main conspirator and the driver was acting on his behest. It was further highlighted that the accused-driver had since been released on bail, but the petitioner continued to be in custody.

As per allegations, the petitioner was picked up by the police from outside his college, beaten up and subjected to casteist slurs.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the plea of one Yogesh Meena, a first-year law student at Delhi University, who is allegedly being questioned by the police over his acquaintance with a driver arrested in connection with the protests (who has been granted bail).

Alam argued that on May 19, the Court was told about certain inciteful messages being circulated by some provocative persons in a Whatsapp group. On May 20, a person was arrested over circulation of the messages and was found to be a driver employed by the Home Ministry. Thereafter, the petitioner was picked up by the police from outside college, beaten up and subjected to casteist slurs. The counsel alleged that the petitioner is being harassed by the police and asked how he knows the driver or whether he set up the driver.

When Justice Nagarathna suggested that the petitioner seek bail, Alam replied that bail was sought but not granted. "We are before your lordships only to show the abuse of process", the counsel said.

"But you have remedies in law...you want us to direct University to hold supplementary exams etc...individual prayers bypassing remedies in law..." Justice Nagarathna noted. Alam replied that the petitioner would pursue the remedies available under law, but here, he was on the issue of Article 14 being repeatedly violated.

"But bail in a writ petition...", Justice Nagarathna continued to express. Alam however clarified, "that's not what I am asking. All I am saying is,  your lordships may note this abuse of process. Your lordships may note what is happening to a young student." The judge then responded that the petition could only be disposed of while reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue individual reliefs before appropriate forum.

Beseeching the court to keep the matter pending, Alam reiterated that the petitioner is not pressing individual reliefs, but just wishes for the court to take note of the general abuse of process. "11 FIRs...I will be seeking bail for the next few years! the process will become the punishment" she submitted.

When the bench suggested that the petitioner pursue remedies for quashing of the FIRs, Alam agreed, but added that the court may keep the matter pending to see how protestors are being dealt with. "He's a student lordship. He's being accused of having set up somebody who is out on bail!", she stressed.

It may be recalled that two other petitions are pending before the court in connection with the Noida protests of April. One of these pertains to the arrest of Aditya Anand (software engineer and social worker) and Rupesh Roy (auto driver). While Anand was arrested from Tamil Nadu, Roy was picked up from Botanical Garden Metro station.

Dealing with the petition, which alleges custodial torture, the Court had remarked earlier that Anand and Roy were simply protesting for increase in wages and were not "terrorists". It had also called for their production before the court on May 18.

Another petition pertains to journalist Satyam Verma, whose wife has approached the Court against his preventive detention under the National Security Act. Verma was allegedly detained for instigating protestors to indulge in violence.

Case Title: YOGESH MEENA Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.