Supreme Court notice on plea that U.P. Police played ‘agent provocateur’ in Noida workers’ violence

The Supreme Court on Tuesday, May 19, 2026, decided to hear a petition alleging that the State of Uttar Pradesh is weaponizing police machinery to infiltrate and crush legitimate labor agitation in Noida to protect corporate entities indulging in “rampant wage theft”.

A Bench headed by Justice BV Nagarathna issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government, State Police and the Union government to respond to the petition filed by Shakambhari, whose 60-year-old activist husband Satyam Verma, who has been arraigned in three different First Information Reports (FIRs), has slapped the National Security Act (NSA) to thwart his chances of getting bail.

“The state weaponized the police machinery to arbitrarily crush legitimate labor agitation in Noida, Uttar Pradesh, shielded corporate entities from liability for rampant wage theft, and maliciously indicted working class and members of civil society through stringent criminal prosecutions,” lawyers Shahrukh Alam and Paras Nath Singh said.

The cause of the case in the court was not only about the illegal detention of Mr. Verma, but also “the concerted application of arbitrary, tedious and fabricated criminal proceedings to silence the working class and its democratic allies”, the petition said.

The previous hearing had witnessed the court’s declaration that agitating workers should not be treated as “terrorists” by the State and that the government has a constitutional obligation to provide “living wage” to the workers. Two protesters who were removed by police appeared in court on May 19. Their families had moved the higher court to find out their whereabouts. The court decided to continue the detention of the suspects.

The petition stated that instead of fulfilling its role as a welfare state, the state was secretly using police officers to become part of protesters’ WhatsApp groups.

The petition claimed there was “indisputable evidence” showing “state police personnel acted as agent provocateurs to incite the violence they are now prosecuting.” The petition stated that the entire prosecution was invalid as the investigating agency itself acted as the “architect of the unrest”. It was stated that the court should conduct an inquiry into the role of the Uttar Pradesh Police under the chairmanship of a retired or serving judge.

The protests, which spanned April 10-13, were a spontaneous and peaceful demand by factory workers for an increase in the statutory minimum wage (triggered by a recent 21% increase in neighboring Haryana) and an end to 12-hour shifts for just £11,000 a month, the defense said.

“Laying off workers below the minimum wage, as the Supreme Court has held, constitutes forced labor under Article 23. Instead of effectively mediating the dispute to bring about real changes or prosecuting employers for legal violations, the State has engaged in severe police brutality and criminalized workers’ fundamental right to collective bargaining,” the petition filed by lawyers Deeksha Dwivedi and Krithika D. said.

He also said that the State had deliberately divided a single and sustained labor protest into 14 separate FIRs even though the allegations, geographical locations and sequence of events in these FIRs were the same.

“This strategic proliferation subjects citizens to an endless cycle of arrests and detentions,” the petition stated.

He said FIRs should be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation or the Special Investigation Team. The court scheduled the case for July 21.