The Allahabad High Court today issued notices to the Union of India, the State of Uttar Pradesh, and the District Magistrate of Gautam Buddh Nagar in a habeas corpus petition filed by journalist Satyam Verma challenging his preventive detention under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA). The bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev directed the respondents to file their replies and posted the matter for hearing on October 7, 2026.
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. He 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 the quashing of the detention order and consequential orders, along with a direction for his immediate release and compensation for 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 violence during the April 13, 2026 Workers' Protest in Noida. The petition claims that, according to 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 petitioner 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.
The petition 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'. It 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 plea 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'.
Verma has also alleged violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c), 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution. The petition contends 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. It alleges that the State Government's approval order dated May 20, 2026, was never served on him, depriving him of the opportunity to make an effective representation under Article 22(5).
The petitioner 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. It 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. The plea 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 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 detention under the NSA, asserting that the procedural safeguards mandated by the statute and constitutional provisions were not complied with. The bench, after hearing preliminary arguments, deemed it necessary to issue notices to the respondents to enable a fair adjudication of the matter. The court has not passed any final order on the merits at this stage, limiting its intervention to the issuance of notices and directing the filing of counter-affidavits.