Lucknow or Noida? Journalist Satyam Verma says CCTV footage and call records place him in Lucknow on the day of the Noida violence, while the detention order alleges he incited workers to violence. The Allahabad High Court has now reserved judgment on his NSA detention habeas plea.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Prayagraj: After hearing the parties on October 7 and 8, the Allahabad High Court on October 8, 2026 reserved judgment on a habeas corpus petition filed by journalist Satyam Verma against his preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980, which stems from the April 2026 Noida workers’ protest [Satyam Verma v. State of U.P. and Others].
A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev heard the petition. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, with Advocates Abhishek Dwivedi, Deeksha Dwivedi and Manik Gupta, appeared for the petitioner. The detention is a live matter: the allegations in the detention order are untested, the Court has expressed no view on the merits, and the petitioner is entitled to the presumption of innocence in the criminal cases pending against him.
The Lucknow alibi
Verma calls the detention “factually impossible” on its own premise. His case is that CCTV footage and call detail records show him about 500 km away from Noida, in Lucknow, where Hasanganj Police allegedly detained him at 2:14 PM on April 13, 2026, the day of the Noida violence. He alleges that the investigating officer withheld this material from the detaining authority.
He adds that none of the 11 FIRs relied on names him, and that the order leans on statements a co-accused made in police custody, which he says are inadmissible. Income from his profession, received through banking channels and shown in tax returns, was wrongly described as “riot funding”, he contends. In his telling the dispute was a local minimum-wage labour issue, a law and order problem and not a threat to public order, and his political affiliation and his work as a translator and publisher were criminalised.
What the detention order alleges
As described in earlier proceedings before the Supreme Court, the detention order alleges that Verma pushed workers towards collective violence and indirectly encouraged large-scale arson of public and private property during the Noida unrest. It also cites writings and literature said to be aimed at drawing young people to a rebel organisation. These are the State’s allegations. They have not been tested and no court has found them proved.
Three orders in challenge
The petition targets the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar’s detention order of May 12, 2026 under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, the State Government’s approval order of May 20, 2026 under Section 3(4), and a further order of June 10, 2026 under Section 12(1). Verma asks for the orders to be quashed, for his immediate release and for compensation. The Court issued notice on the plea on September 16 and sought the State’s reply.
Safeguards said to be missed
On procedure, Verma alleges violation of Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c), 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution. The approval order was never served on him, he says, his representation of May 21 was not placed before the Advisory Board, and the Board hearing on May 26 gave him about 18 hours’ notice. He also alleges that his arrest on the night of April 17 and 18 came without an arrest memo or intimation to his family.
The parity argument
Verma points to an earlier Allahabad High Court decision quashing a similarly worded NSA detention order against co-detenue Aakriti Chaudhary over the same agitation, and argues that his case is stronger. The Supreme Court has since stayed only the strictures and compensation directions in that matter, not the quashing of the detention.
Earlier proceedings
The Supreme Court issued notice on May 19, 2026 on a writ petition filed by Verma’s wife. It declined interim relief for the time being, saying the validity of the detention order had to be examined, after the Additional Solicitor General pointed out that a habeas petition was pending in the High Court. On September 15, the High Court deferred Verma’s bail plea in one of the 11 criminal cases after the State sought time to file objections on parity. The merits of those cases are not before the Court in this petition.
What the reservation leaves open
The petition asks the Court to test, on the record, both the material before the detaining authority and the procedural safeguards of Article 22(5), including service of the grounds and a timely representation. The State’s case is that the unrest warranted preventive action; the petitioner’s case is that the material was flawed and the safeguards were not followed.
Judgment is reserved and the Court has made no finding on either side’s contentions. The outcome will turn on the detention record and the Court’s reading of it, while the criminal cases will continue on their own merits.
Case Title: Satyam Verma v. State of U.P. and Others
Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev, Allahabad High Court
Date of Hearing and Reservation: October 7 and 8, 2026 (judgment reserved October 8, 2026)
Appearances: Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves with Advocates Abhishek Dwivedi, Deeksha Dwivedi and Manik Gupta for the petitioner