The Allahabad High Court today issued notices to the Union of India, State of Uttar Pradesh, and the Noida DM in a habeas corpus petition filed by journalist Satyam Verma, challenging his preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA) for his alleged participation in the April 2026 Workers' Protest.

A bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev sought the replies of the respondents and posted the matter for October 7.

Verma has challenged the detention order dated May 12, 2026, passed by the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar, under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(3) of the NSA.

Verma has also challenged the State Government's approval order dated May 20, 2026, under Section 3(4) and the subsequent order dated June 10, 2026, under Section 12(1) of the Act.

The petition seeks quashing of the detention order and consequential orders, as well as a direction for Verma's immediate release and compensation for his alleged illegal detention.

The primary ground raised in the habeas plea is that the detention order was allegedly based on a “factually impossible” premise that Verma was involved in the violence in Noida on April 13, 2026.

The petition claims that, according to the CCTV footage and Call Detail Records (CDRs), Verma was approximately 500 kilometers away in Lucknow, where he was allegedly detained by the Hasanganj Police at 2:14 PM on the same day.

The plea describes this as an "ironclad alibi" and argues that an NSA detention order based on “physically impossible and demonstrably false premises” is liable to be quashed.

It further alleges that the Investigating Officer deliberately suppressed the CDRs and CCTV footage from Hasanganj Police Station from the Detaining Authority, thereby vitiating the latter's "subjective satisfaction".

The petition also contends that Verma was not named in any of the 11 FIRs relied upon by the State for the detention.

According to the plea, the detention order rests upon statements allegedly made by a co-accused/witness named Mangal while in police custody. The petitioner argues that such statements are inadmissible in law and could not form the basis of the subjective satisfaction required for preventive detention.

The petition further disputes the State's alleged characterization of Verma's professional income as "riot funding". It contends that his income for nearly 20 years was earned through his profession, received through formal banking channels and declared in Income Tax Returns.

Another ground raised in the petition is that the material relied upon by the authorities, even taken at its highest, disclosed a localized labor dispute over minimum wages, which, according to Verma, falls within the domain of "law and order" and does not constitute a threat to "public order".

The plea alleges that the NSA was consequently used to "crush a spontaneous and lawful labour demand".

It also alleges violation of Verma's fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c), 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution, contending that his political ideology, association with the Revolutionary Workers Party of India (RWPI), and profession as a translator and publisher of literature were sought to be criminalized.

The plea alleges that the State Government's approval order dated May 20, 2026, was never served on Verma, depriving him of the opportunity to make an effective representation under Article 22(5).

The petitioner also challenges the grounds of detention for allegedly restricting his right to make a representation to 12 days and for stating that the representation would not be considered after the Government's approval was received.

The plea further alleges that Verma's statutory representation dated May 21, 2026 was deliberately suppressed and was not placed before the Advisory Board, despite Section 11(1) of the NSA requiring consideration of the representation.

It also challenges the Advisory Board hearing held on May 26, alleging that Verma was given barely 18 hours' notice, with the hearing taking place at night, allegedly preventing him from adequately preparing his defence or seeking assistance.

Verma has also relied upon an earlier Allahabad High Court order concerning co-detenue Akriti Chaudhary.

The plea states that the Court had quashed a similarly worded preventive detention order passed on the same date by the same authority and arising from the same agitation. On this basis, Verma claims that his case stands on an "even stronger footing" and seeks quashing of the detention orders on the ground of parity.

The petition also challenges Verma's initial arrest during the intervening night of April 17-18, alleging that it was carried out by plain-clothed personnel without an arrest memo and without informing his family.

The petitioner has sought a writ of habeas corpus quashing the detention order dated May 12, 2026, and subsequent approval and confirmation orders, along with a direction to set him at liberty forthwith and pay compensation for his alleged illegal detention.

In related news, the Allahabad High Court yesterday deferred the bail plea of Journalist Satyam Verma in one of the 11 criminal cases registered against him in connection with the April 2026 Noida workers' protest, after the State sought an opportunity to file its objections to his bail plea on the ground of parity.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, along with Abhishek Dwivedi, Deeksha Dwivedi and Manik Gupta, appeared for Verma