The Supreme Court of India refused bail to a student accused in the Noida workers’ protest violence case, directing him to approach the Allahabad High Court first while questioning maintainability of petitions filed directly under Article 32.
The Supreme Court refused to grant bail to a student accused of allegedly provoking violence during an industrial workers’ protest in Noida on April 13. The case was heard by a Bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, which told the accused to approach the Allahabad High Court first rather than seeking relief directly from the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
During the proceedings, the Bench raised questions about whether the plea was maintainable before the apex court.
The Bench remarked,
“Why don’t you go to high court ? Everybody comes here by filing petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. There are 93,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court,”
The application was moved by Aakriti Chaudhary, who is alleged to have been involved in the violence that broke out during demonstrations by industrial workers in Noida last month. Her counsel contended that the police had not furnished the grounds for her arrest and requested interim bail on that basis. It was also submitted that Chaudhary is a student at Delhi University.
The Supreme Court limited its consideration and did not entertain the bail request. However, it issued notice to Uttar Pradesh police officials in a separate plea filed by Keshaw Anand, who alleged that he had been subjected to custodial torture by the authorities.
Earlier, a Noida court had allowed conditional police remand for three women accused in the case—Aakriti Chaudhary, Manisha Chauhan, and Srishti Gupta. The court also permitted their lawyers to be present during the investigation proceedings.
As per the case documents, Chaudhary and Gupta are residents of Delhi and are in their twenties. Chaudhary is reportedly a master’s degree holder in history from Daulat Ram College, while Chauhan is said to be employed with an industrial establishment in Noida.
When seeking custody remand, the prosecution argued that there was a “full possibility of getting important evidence from the place of residence of the accused”. Police maintained that further investigation was required to collect materials linked to the alleged violence.
The case stems from large-scale protests by factory workers in Noida who demanded revised wages and improved working conditions. Officials stated that workers from multiple industrial units joined the demonstrations in large numbers and raised slogans in support of long-pending salary demands. The protests reportedly turned violent, with allegations that some participants vandalized public property, resorted to stone pelting, and set a vehicle on fire.
The incident led to multiple arrests and increased scrutiny of labour unrest in the industrial belt, with authorities continuing their investigation into the alleged involvement of different individuals and organizations in the violence.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE