New Delhi: Activists arrested by the Uttar Pradesh police over the labour protests in Noida have told the Supreme Court that police played an active role in inciting the violence that they were held for. The Uttar Pradesh police has arrested several labour activists and one senior journalist, Satyam Verma, on allegations of hatching a conspiracy and inciting violence in Noida. Verma and student activist Akriti Choudhury, have been slapped with the National Security Act.The brother of one of the two arrested activists moved the Supreme Court on May 17, alleging that police itself incited violence and tortured activists in custody.In a copy of the writ petition accessed by The Wire, filed on behalf of two labour activists, Aditya Anand and Rupesh Roy, the petitioner Keshaw Anand alleges a gross violation of the right to life and liberty. The petitioner also alleges that “the Uttar Pradesh Police is again seeking police custody after almost one month of arrest only for further custodial violence and fabrication.”‘Police presence in WhatsApp groups’Annexure 8 in the petition, titled ‘Submission of evidence relating to the role of the police in Noida Violence, to the Uttar Pradesh Police’ is relevant. Annexure 8 is an email from Advocate Manik Gupta to Laxmi Singh, Commissioner of Police, Noida, and to Rajeev Krishna, Director General of Police. The advocate states: “This is to bring to your notice the involvement of police officials in the Noida workers’ protest. We have evidence that officials of the UP Police were part of one of the workers’ WhatsApp groups, ‘Richa Global Noida’. The police officials in the group had an active role in inciting violence.”On April 23, The Wire published detailed video interviews in which the allegations, the Noida protests, and the subsequent police action. The video covered the fact that Sub-Inspector Beena Kaur, who is posted in Sector 142, Noida, was also part of the WhatsApp group “Richa Global Noida.” The group was meant for workers and labour activists. Rupesh Roy and Aditya Anand were admins of the group.Beena Kaur had shared a screenshot in the group showing a vehicle on fire, the petition alleged. When contacted, she had confirmed that it was her phone number but disconnected the call when asked why she was sending messages in the group. A Times of India report cited unnamed sources who spoke to the newspaper about Beena’s role. The report said:“Sources, however, did not deny sub-inspector Beena’s presence on the WhatsApp group used to mobilise workers, saying she had been ‘placed’ there an hour after the violence was over to gather intel.”The station house officer Vinod Kumar of the Noida Sector 143 police station contradicted this source while speaking to The Wire and said: “She is not part of any cyber cell. Someone may have added her by mistake, or she may have joined the group inadvertently.”Another individual accused by the petitioner of inciting violence and acting on behalf of the police is a man identified as Anil. We were able to verify that he had sent a voice note on April 13 saying, “Modi aa raha hai bypass ka udghatan karne, kal pura road jam karna chahiye (Modi is coming to inaugurate the bypass; we should block the road tomorrow).”A screenshot of the group showing Anil Kumar’s voice note at the end.When contacted on April 21, Anil said that he worked as a driver in the Ministry of Home Affairs on a contractual basis. He also stated that he had previously worked at the company Richa Global, where protests had broken out over minimum wages and other demands. He denied any intention to incite violence by sending the above voice note.The petition claims that SI Beena Kaur and Anil infiltrated the WhatsApp group in order to “foment trouble.”On May 21, the driver Anil Kumar was taken into custody. Times of India has reported that police said, “Anil Kumar had no connection with any police officer in Noida, nor does he work in the city” and that Kumar “is in contractual employ of an official with a central government agency in Delhi.” Speaking to The Wire, Anil had said that he worked for the Union home ministry. The petition on behalf of Rupesh Roy and Aditya Anand also counters many claims of the police such as: “Out of 28 photographs showing [in affidavit by state of Uttar Pradesh] destruction caused, not one photo, video or speech of the accused persons.””State says conspiracy began at a library. This was [the inauguration] of a library for children.” The petition includes photographs showing the inauguration of a library in Karawal Nagar on April 21, where children had gathered under a large poster of Bhagat Singh and other freedom fighters.The image of the Karawal Nagar schoolchildren in the petition.Custodial torture allegationsThe petition also claims that accused Aditya Anand had no injuries while he was in judicial custody, but was physically tortured during police custody.The petition says that in an affidavit the state said that when on April 19, 2026, the accused Aditya Anand was brought to Uttar Pradesh from Tamil Nadu, there was no injury on his body. The petition further says that Aditya remained in judicial custody from April 19 to April 28 and there was no injury in this time. The petition cites an affidavit filed by the state that says, “During the examination on April 30, 2026 at 3:00 PM [immediately after police custody] “minor swelling on the finger of the left hand and abrasion on the left wrist were noted.””The petition further alleges that what is being suppressed in the affidavit is the observation of the medical officer which stated “traumatic swelling 3.1 cm on finger of left hand, 2 cm below metacarpal joint, abrasion of 3.3 cm on forearm [and] 3 cm on wrist joint of left hand dorsal surface.”The petition further says that after the medical report showed injuries, the police wrote in the general diary that Aditya had injured himself.The petition’s quote of the diary says:“While at our custody yesterday on 29 April, 2026, the accused Aditya Anand, in a fit of anger and emotional outburst, while self deprecating, struck his fist against the wall two to three times.”Police claimed to have “counselled him and calmed him down.”Police claimed that at that time, no injuries were visible on his hands but that swelling appeared in due course – a version that his family and fellow activists disagree with.