The Allahabad High Court has issued formal notices to the Union of India, the Uttar Pradesh state government, and the Noida district magistrate in response to a habeas corpus petition challenging the preventive detention of journalist Satyam Verma under the National Security Act, 1980.
A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev directed the authorities to file their responses and listed the matter for its next hearing on October 7. In his petition, Verma has sought the revocation of the detention order and all consequential directions, alongside his immediate release and monetary compensation for what he describes as unlawful confinement.
State authorities invoked the preventive detention law against Verma over his alleged participation in an April 13 workers’ agitation in Noida that witnessed violence.
Claims of Alibi and Withheld Records
The central contention raised in the petition is that the detention order rests on a factually impossible foundation. According to the plea, Verma was roughly 500 kilometres away in Lucknow when the unrest occurred in Noida. The plea cites call detail records and closed-circuit television footage indicating that personnel from the Hasanganj police station detained Verma in Lucknow at 2:14 pm on the day of the incident, describing this evidence as an ironclad alibi.
The petition further alleges that the investigating officer intentionally suppressed the Hasanganj surveillance footage and mobile phone records from the detaining authority. Verma also highlighted that his name does not appear in any of the 11 First Information Reports registered in connection with the Noida incident that the state relied upon to justify his detention.
Disputed Financial Allegations and Parity Plea
The plea challenges the legal validity of the evidence used by the administration, noting that the detention order relies on statements made by a co-accused and witness named Mangal while in police custody. Verma contends that custodial statements are inadmissible under the law and cannot substantiate the subjective satisfaction legally required to order preventive detention.
The petition also refutes the state’s characterisation of Verma’s earnings as riot funding. It states that his income spans nearly 20 years of professional work, has been routed entirely through standard banking channels, and is documented in regular income tax returns. The plea alleges that authorities invoked the National Security Act to suppress a lawful, spontaneous labour demand.
Verma has additionally sought relief on grounds of parity, citing a prior decision by the Allahabad High Court that quashed an identical detention order against co-detenue Akriti Chaudhary. That order was issued on the same date by the same authority and pertained to the same agitation. Arguing that his circumstances place him on an even stronger legal footing, Verma submitted that his detention orders should be set aside accordingly.
