“Where did this term ‘Aandolanjeevi’ come from? How did it find its way into an official document?” The Allahabad High Court put that question to the State while hearing journalist Satyam Verma’s habeas corpus plea against his detention under the National Security Act, 1980, and asked how an ideology or possession of literature could, by itself, justify preventive detention. Judgment is reserved. The allegations are untested and the Court has expressed no view on the merits. [Satyam Verma v. State of U.P. and Others]
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Prayagraj: A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev of the Allahabad High Court heard the petition on October 7 and 8, 2026, and reserved judgment. The questions below were put orally to Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal and are not findings.
What the Bench asked
Justice Sreedharan asked the State where the term had come from and how it came to be used in an official document. The Bench also questioned why the District Magistrate had relied on Verma’s ideology, his literature and his organisational association as material for detention, and asked how holding an ideology or possessing literature could on its own form a basis for preventive detention.
The detention grounds
The detention order, dated May 12, 2026 and passed under Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the Act by the District Magistrate of Gautam Buddh Nagar, relates to the April 2026 workers’ protest and violence in Noida. As reported, the grounds describe the violence as harming industrial investment, employment and development in the district. They also refer to Verma’s alleged ideology, to an alleged association with a political organisation whose literature is said to have been used to influence younger people, and to “narrative making through mass communication” said to create anti-state and anti-administration thinking.
They record a “strong presumption” that he will continue such activities. These are the State’s allegations. They have not been tested, and no court has found them proved.
The petitioner’s case
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, with Advocates Abhishek Dwivedi, Deeksha Dwivedi and Manik Gupta, argued that the material sought to criminalise Verma’s political ideology, his association and his literature and translation work. He submitted that the grounds of May 12 were allegedly a verbatim reproduction of an unverified social media thread of April 14, 2026, and that a police report of May 9 was allegedly copied from the same thread.
The petition says CCTV footage places Verma in Lucknow at about 2:13 PM on April 13, when the Noida violence took place, and relies on call records in support. It alleges that the District Magistrate was shown another accused’s call records but not his. Verma is not named in any of the 11 FIRs relied on, and his professional income, received through banking channels, was wrongly treated as funding for unrest, it is contended.
The petitioner also contends that preventive detention cannot substitute for the ordinary criminal process or defeat regular bail, that academic reading, journalism and belief are constitutionally protected, and that speech attracts penal consequences only where it has a nexus to incitement to violence. The petition also challenges the handling of his Advisory Board representation and the additional grounds dated May 26, 2026.
The State’s position
The State relied on the circumstances recorded in the detention order to justify the detention. Its full oral submissions were not reported, and the Bench’s questions to the Additional Advocate General do not amount to any finding for or against either side.
Verma remains presumed innocent in the criminal cases pending against him, whose merits are not before the Court in this petition. No date for the verdict has been indicated.
Case details: Satyam Verma v. State of U.P. and Others | Bench: Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev | Heard: October 7 and 8, 2026 | Judgment reserved.
Appearances: Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves with Advocates Abhishek Dwivedi, Deeksha Dwivedi and Manik Gupta (for the petitioner); Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal (for the State).