As per the Supreme Court's latest roster sheet(which can be accessed here) dated July 13, the matters concerning habeas corpus and preventive detention[2201-2202] have been assigned only to the first four benches - led by CJI Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice MM Sundresh respectively - in order of seniority.

Based on the roster, Noida workers' protest matters are being heard by a bench headed by Justice BV Nagarathna. Currently, three petitions are pending before her, all concerning either habeas corpus or preventive detention.

The first one is a habeas corpus petition, filed by one Keshaw Anand, seeking that his brother Aditya Anand (software engineer and social worker) and Rupesh Roy (auto driver) be produced in the Court. He also challenged their arrest over the alleged involvement in the protest [KESHAW ANAND Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH|W.P.(Crl.) No. 174/2026].

The matter had come up before Justice Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, which issued notice on May 8. On May 15, the bench ordered that the accused persons be produced by the Uttar Pradesh police before the Court. Some oral observations were also passed by the bench, remarking that the two were merely protesting for the increase in wages and there is no need to treat them as “terrorists”. Subsequently, they were produced, and the Court extended their judicial custody while keeping the petition pending vide an order dated May 19. This matter remains pending.

Subsequently, journalist Satyam Varma's wife filed a writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus challenging the preventive detention of her husband under the NSA on the allegation of instigating protestors to indulge in violence [SHAKAMBHARI v STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.|W.P.(Crl.) No. 201/2026]. This matter was also heard by the same combination, and notice was issued on May 19. Ultimately, on September 7, the petitioner withdrew the petition with the liberty to approach the High Court.

Latest, another writ petition filed by one law student, Yogesh Meena, challenging his arrest and alleged police harassment by the Uttar Pradesh police in relation to the Noida labour protest also came up before Justice Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan on August 7 [YOGESH MEENA vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH|W.P.(Crl.) No. 000235 / 2026]. The student was arrested for his alleged acquaintance with a driver(who has been granted bail) arrested in connection with the protests. This matter also remains pending.

A genuine question emerges why the petitions filed by Noida DM and the State of UP [STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. AKRITI CHAUDHARY AND ANR|SLP(Crl) No. 18010/2026] were listed before Justice Sharma's bench. Notably, both these matters are assigned the Category number 2202 pertaining to habeas corpus and preventive detention cases. This category is conspicuously absent from Justice Sharma's roster.

Further, no defects were notified in the petition and the respondent was on caveat.

Usually, connected matters are assigned to the same bench. For instance, in the recent past, the Delhi riots matter came up before a bench headed by Justice Aravind Kumar, which pronounced judgment on the bail of seven accused persons on January 5. Subsequently, bail pleas were also filed by co-accused persons Tasleem Ahmed, Khalid Saifi, and Athar Khan. All pleas came up before Justice Aravind Kumar's bench. In fact, co-accused Devangana Kalita's plea to inspect unrelied documents kept in the malkhana was also before the same bench.

As per Justice Sharma's roster, "any other matters specially assigned" can also be listed before him. Since preventive detention matters are not otherwise present in his roster, it could be inferred that the Noida DM's matter was specially assigned to his bench. This can only be done by the Chief Justice of India as master of the roster, who has the prerogative to assign cases using his administrative powers.

The question is why this special assignment was done, when there are four other benches specifically assigned the roster for preventive detention, and another bench (J Nagarathna) is already seized of connected petitions arising from the Noida workers' protest.

The listing of this matter is certainly a deviation from the established procedure, and since no explanation is forthcoming, doubts emerge about the exercise of the Master of Roster powers, which have attracted controversies in the past as well.

The hearing also witnessed another curious development. The bench directed that the audio of the VC proceedings be muted, thereby cutting off the access of Court reporters (who are not physically present). Since it was not a matter pertaining to personal privacy, and related to the decisions of a public office, the restriction of media access for this open court hearing raises further questions.

The lack of reasons for these unusual developments generates reasonable doubts in the minds of dispassionate observers, impinging upon the public confidence in the system.