The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned the hearing of a petition alleging custodial torture of Aditya Anand and Rupesh Roy, arrested by the Uttar Pradesh Police in connection with the Noida labourer protest case, to Tuesday. The division bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, which had earlier on Friday ordered the physical production of both accused after hearing allegations of torture, clarified that it would not accept a video conference appearance despite an offer from the state counsel.
Court Rejects Virtual Production
The bench postponed the matter to Tuesday to allow the state police to make necessary arrangements for the physical production of the accused in court. Petitioner Keshaw Anand, brother of Aditya Anand, stated that the case involves physical torture in police custody and violations of legal procedures during arrest. He emphasized that virtual production would not serve the purpose in such cases, leading the court to direct the state to produce them in person.
Heckling of Advocates Alleged
Senior counsel Colin Gonsalves, representing the petitioner, also raised concerns during the hearing that advocates representing the two accused were being heckled and physically obstructed by state police personnel. Meanwhile, the sessions court in Surajpur heard bail applications filed by Aakriti, another co-accused in the case, adjourning one to Tuesday and the other to May 22. Her counsel, Rajnish Yadav, argued that the prosecution had failed to produce evidence supporting the charges against her under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and was seeking time. Aakriti has also been named in a fresh FIR (case crime No. 169) registered at Phase II police station on April 23, in which police have applied for a B warrant to take her into custody for questioning.
Demand for Independent Inquiry
During Friday's hearing, Gonsalves informed the court that Anand, an engineer, had addressed workers on April 13 solely to explain their rights and urge restraint. He sought an independent inquiry into the allegations. “There are three videos of Aditya’s speech where he is appealing to workers to keep the protest peaceful,” he said, adding that the agitation centered on the demand for minimum wages. The bench observed that demanding minimum wages is “a fundamental right” of labourers.
Government's Counterarguments
The government counsel, however, argued that the protest turned violent after some activists incited the crowd, leading to arson and damage to public property. He also claimed that the accused were influenced by “Leftist ideology.” The judges made it clear that holding or following “Leftist ideology” is not a crime in India. The government further rejected allegations that arrest procedures had been flouted, stating that grounds of arrest had been supplied, intimation of arrest given, and transit remand obtained. It also denied the torture charge, noting that medico-legal certificates recorded no visible injuries.
Support for Workers' Demands
Gonsalves countered that Anand was being “treated like a terrorist” despite supporting “the lawful demands of workers.” He told the court that Anand also runs a library for underprivileged children in Greater Noida. In a statement issued after the hearing, the Campaign for Release of Workers and Activists of Noida (CaRWAN) expressed hope that the apex court’s intervention would ensure justice for those arrested by the UP Police.
