PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court has questioned the Uttar Pradesh government over the use of the term “andolanjeevi” in an official preventive detention order passed against journalist Satyam Verma under the National Security Act. A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev reserved its judgment on Verma’s habeas corpus petition challenging his detention, which was ordered in connection with workers’ protests and subsequent violence in Noida in April 2026. During hearings conducted on October 7 and 8, the bench asked Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal how such a colloquial label found its way into a formal state document, while examining whether an individual’s personal ideology, reading habits, and organisational associations could legally justify preventive detention.
State Invokes National Security Act Over Threat to Industrial Investment
The detention order was issued on May 12, 2026, by Gautam Buddh Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam under Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the National Security Act. Authorities justified the preventive action by framing the April agitation as a direct hazard to industrial development, employment, and external investment in the region. The administration noted that Gautam Buddh Nagar houses a heavy concentration of industrial units and argued that unrest would instil fear among employers, disrupting both the commercial climate and public order.
Within the grounds of detention, authorities labelled Verma an “andolanjeevi” whose ideological engagement allegedly stoked industrial instability. The document accused him of ties to the Revolutionary Workers Party of India, claiming the outfit’s literature and programmes were deployed to influence youth toward violent disruptions. It also alleged the use of mass communication to build an anti-government narrative among laborers. The High Court, however, questioned whether holding specific beliefs or possessing political reading material could constitutionally validate preventive custody without direct evidence of wrongdoing.
Defence Alleges Grounds Were Lifted From Social Media Thread
Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Colin Gonsalves submitted that the detention record sought to criminalise academic pursuits, translation work, and political expression. Verma’s petition alleged that the official detention grounds dated May 12 were a direct, unverified reproduction of a social media thread published on April 14, 2026, by an account named “The Chronology” on the platform X.
The plea further stated that an inquiry report submitted on May 9 by a Phase-II police station inspector, which underpinned the detention dossier, copied the same online post. That social media thread had sought to link the Noida wage dispute to a series of unrelated political mobilisations, including protests in Mumbai over Gaza, agitations against the CAA and NRC, demonstrations concerning Delhi’s air quality, and the Bhagat Singh Jan Adhikar Yatra. The petitioner asserted that the detaining authority relied on politically motivated, unverified internet commentary rather than independent intelligence.
Petitioner Submits Alibi and Contests Absence from Police Cases
The defence disputed Verma’s presence during the April 13 violence in Noida, placing before the court closed-circuit television footage showing him in Lucknow at 2:13 pm that afternoon. Supported by mobile call detail records, the petition contended that the magistrate overlooked clear alibi material while selectively relying on records of another accused. Gonsalves emphasised that Verma was not named in any of the 11 police first information reports linked to the incident, and argued that regular professional earnings routed through banking channels were falsely portrayed as protest financing.
Citing Supreme Court precedents, the plea argued that extraordinary detention laws cannot be deployed to bypass the ordinary criminal justice framework or defeat statutory bail provisions. Verma has sought the quashing of the order, immediate release, and damages for unlawful detention. The bench has reserved its verdict.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
