New Delhi: The Uttar Pradesh Police has arrested hundreds of individuals and has consistently described the workers’ protest that took place in Noida in April as the result of a meticulously planned “conspiracy”. However, the charge sheets submitted in four first information reports (FIRs) expose several discrepancies over arrest dates, the presence of accused persons at the protest site, mobile location data, witness statements and alleged inflammatory speeches, raising questions about the investigation.The police have also cited the ideological affiliations and reading material of some of the accused, including books on Bhagat Singh, Marxism and revolutionary politics, as part of their case.One of the most striking contradictions concerns senior journalist and activist Satyam Verma, named as a prime accused. The UP Police says in one part of the charge sheet that “he was not in the city but was involved in the conspiracy.” Yet, in the same charge-sheet, a witness statement claims that Verma was seen engaging in scuffles with police, pelting stones and raising slogans alongside other protesters.Verma’s family, meanwhile, has confirmed that he had not visited Noida in nearly a decade.The charge sheets filed in July, in FIR numbers 163/2026, 164/2026, 165/2026 and 169/2026, contain several points that contradict other documents in the case, including remand papers, mobile location records, dates of arrests, alleged inflammatory speeches and witness statements.The workers’ protest in Noida, which demanded minimum wages, overtime pay and improved working conditions, began approximately four months ago in April. The agitation turned violent in some areas. Workers and activists have alleged that this followed the police’s unprovoked use of force, while the police have maintained that such measures were necessary after the crowd became unruly.Subsequently, the police described the agitation as a “conspiracy” and began arresting numerous workers and student activists. A total of 14 FIRs were registered, leading to hundreds of arrests in connection with the matter. Charge sheets have now been filed in four of these 14 cases.In the charge sheets, police claimed that the protest was not a spontaneous assembly of workers but the result of a “pre-planned conspiracy”. The police alleged that certain social activists and student leaders incited workers to engage in violence, orchestrated the destruction of public property and attempted to challenge law and order.The charge sheets also state that activists mobilised the crowd for the agitation through WhatsApp groups and well-planned meetings, and that the mobilisation was based on ideological grounds.The Wire Hindi has perused these charge sheets and found several apparent contradictions. The ‘Campaign for Release of Workers and Activists of Noida’ (CARWAN), an organisation working for the release of the arrested workers and activists, has accused the police of distorting facts in the charge sheets.Discrepancies in arrest datesIn the charge sheets for FIRs 164 and 165, the arrest date for Akriti Chaudhary, Srishti Gupta and Manisha Chauhan is recorded as April 27, while Rupesh Rai’s arrest is noted as May 7.However, the remand documents for the same accused individuals state that they were arrested on April 17. Similarly, the charge sheet filed in connection with FIR 163 records April 22 as the date of Akriti’s arrest. For Srishti and Manisha, the documented date is April 24. The remand sheet, however, lists April 15 as the arrest date for all three.Srishti had started a live video on Facebook at the time of her arrest along with Akriti, Manisha and Rupesh, which, according to people associated with the movement, indicates that the arrests actually took place on April 11.In Satyam’s case, the charge sheet claims that he was arrested at the Phase-2 police station on April 19. However, those associated with the protest contend that CCTV footage shows that he was picked up from his home in Lucknow at night on April 17.One part of the case diary mentions that he was arrested in Shalimar Bagh on April 18, while another states that the arrest took place on April 19 at the Phase-3 police station.If they were already in jail, how were they committing the alleged violence?Another important claim in the charge sheet filed in FIR 164/26 is that on April 13, Akriti, Srishti, Manisha, Rupesh, Aditya and Himanshu Thakur were present at the location, where they allegedly delivered inflammatory speeches and contributed to the violence.People associated with the movement have raised substantial doubts about this assertion.According to them, Akriti, Srishti, Manisha and Rupesh were taken into custody near Botanical Garden metro station in Noida on the evening of April 11 and sent to jail the following day. How can the police claim that the four were present at the scene on April 13, they ask.Likewise, they point to the mobile location records submitted by the police, which they say show Himanshu at a different location.The charge sheet in FIR 169 states that Himanshu Thakur was in Noida on April 10, 2026. However, the location data from his mobile phone, as documented in case diary-21 of the same charge sheet, indicates that he was at his residence in Delhi.Factory workers protesting peacefully demanding salary hike in Noida on April 13. Photo: PTI.In the documents presented before the district magistrate to invoke the NSA against Satyam, the UP Police asserted that he was present in Noida on April 10, 11 and 13, 2026. However, the police’s claim in the subsequently filed charge sheet differs.According to the charge sheet, Satyam was not present in Noida during that period. The charge sheet in FIR 163 states: “Accused Satyam Verma was not present at the location at the time of the movement but played an active role in escalating the movement into a violent one by engaging in a criminal conspiracy.”On the other hand, the charge sheet includes a witness statement claiming that the witness saw Satyam, along with Aditya and Himanshu, blocking the road, pelting stones at the police and pushing and shoving.The police also claimed that they received a video of the incident on April 10 showing Satyam, along with accused Aditya and Himanshu, raising slogans.However, those close to Satyam claim that he has not visited Noida in the last 10 years.Questions over the recovery of mobile phonesAccording to the case diary of FIR 165, Akriti Choudhary’s mobile device was recovered from a bag kept in a park in Nimmi Vihar, within the Phase-2 police station area, on April 26.However, the mobile location records included in FIR 169 show that her phone was operational near the Botanical Garden metro station until the evening of April 11. There is also evidence, according to people associated with the movement, that she was detained around this time.This raises a question: if she was in police custody following her arrest, how could her bag have ended up in a park located several kilometres away? A similar question has been raised regarding the recovery of Srishti Gupta’s mobile phone.The police claim that her phone was recovered near SNC company on April 26. But according to Srishti’s call detail record (CDR), attached to the charge sheet, her phone was active close to Botanical Garden metro station on the evening of April 11.In a live video made during her arrest, Srishti can reportedly be seen claiming that the police had seized her phone.Alleged inflammatory speeches, but where is the evidence?In FIR 164, the police claimed that on April 11 and 13, Aditya, Rupesh and other accused delivered inflammatory speeches.However, activists allege that the charge sheet does not contain video recordings of these alleged speeches and that there is no direct evidence to corroborate the claim that they incited violence.On the contrary, people associated with the movement say numerous publicly available videos show the same individuals appealing to workers to maintain a peaceful protest.In FIR 169, Yogesh Meena has also been accused of sending inflammatory messages in a WhatsApp group. However, the screenshots of the messages included in the charge sheet do not, according to those associated with the movement, contain language directly inciting violence.Keshav told The Wire Hindi that the chat record clearly indicates that Yogesh did not support the alleged inflammatory messages posted by Anil Kumar but instead questioned them. Anil Kumar was employed on a contractual basis in the Home Ministry, and protesters accuse him of sending inflammatory messages to the group and maintaining contact with the police.Messages sent by Yogesh in the Richa Global WhatsApp group.The charge sheet in FIR 163/2026 states that violent incidents occurred on April 10 and 11. However, no video or other direct evidence has been provided in the charge sheet to substantiate this allegation, according to the activists.‘Conspiracy’ or a public event?The police have described a meeting held on March 22 in Karawal Nagar, Delhi, as an important link in the alleged conspiracy. They allege that a plan was hatched during the meeting to incite violence in the workers’ movement.People associated with the movement reject this claim.According to them, it was not a secret meeting but a public programme organised in Karawal Nagar that day, during which a library for children and the ‘Shaheed Bhagat Singh Youth Centre’ were inaugurated. Photos and videos of the event are publicly available, they said.Why do the witness statements appear so similar?The statements of several witnesses are strikingly similar in their wording. In some cases, dozens of witnesses have provided accounts using almost identical language.Statements made by many witnesses appear to be similar.People involved in the movement have questioned whether the statements were recorded independently or drafted using a predetermined format.‘Marxist ideology’ as evidence of conspiracyIn the charge sheet of FIR 163, the police have also referred to journalist Satyam’s “Marxist views.”The police have listed “Left literature” allegedly seized from the accused as part of the material they say is connected to the conspiracy.The charge sheet in FIR 169 states that “a book related to revolution was recovered from the residence of the accused, which proves that the accused’s ideology is revolutionary.”The books listed in the charge sheets include Behron ko Sunane Ke Liye by historian Irfan Habib, which focuses on Bhagat Singh and his companions. Other texts include booklets published by ‘Disha Sandhan’, which carries research articles and discussions on Marxist principles, Dutta Bharti’s Ek Kadam Aage Do Kadam Peechhe on social evils, and Darshan Koi Rahasya Nahin, an introductory text explaining philosophical concepts in simple language to peasants during the Chinese Communist Revolution.Magazines such as Janchetna and Mazdoor Bigul are also mentioned. Other books reportedly concern Marxism, Leninism, the Nepal Revolution, fascism and related subjects.According to the police, the arrested activists possessed literature related to Maoism or other banned texts.The police appear to have presented two lists. One contains the names of books allegedly found at the residences of the accused. The second contains material that was not recovered from their homes but was allegedly found elsewhere and linked to them. People associated with the movement allege that this material was “planted.”The police allege that a banned CPI (Maoist) book was recovered from Srishti’s bag. However, the police themselves acknowledge that the bag was not recovered from Srishti but from a park.The police have also claimed to have recovered copies of banned Maoist literature from Manisha. In Himanshu’s case, the police allege that material related to leftist or Maoist ideology was recovered from his room, as well as from his laptop, tablet and other digital devices.Photos: Satyam Verma Rihai Manch.However, Supreme Court lawyer and advocate Kanwalpreet Kaur, who is handling the cases of several accused in the matter, said that merely possessing books related to a particular ideology or aligning with a particular political or ideological perspective does not prove criminal intent or implicate an individual in a violent conspiracy.“Our Constitution grants every citizen the freedom to think, read, debate and express their political views, regardless of how unpopular those views may be. In a democratic society, students, researchers, lawyers and political activists study a range of political and philosophical concepts. The act of reading Marx, Ambedkar, Gandhi or Mao is not in itself proof of any criminal behaviour,” she said.Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vernon Gonsalves vs State of Maharashtra, she said the mere possession of literature or association with an ideology, in the absence of concrete evidence of incitement to violence, participation in violent activities or any illegal act, cannot by itself be treated as a crime.Kanwalpreet termed the emphasis placed on the alleged ideological commitment of the accused in the charge sheet as legally misleading. She also noted that leftist political parties in India are registered and participate in the democratic process. Simply agreeing with a leftist or radical political idea, she said, cannot constitute a crime.CPI(M) leader and former MP Brinda Karat said, “This is highly inappropriate. Will only the ideology of Shakha (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) prevail in our country? This is the first instance where an individual has been detained under the NSA for adhering to Marxist ideology.”Workers’ demands labelled ‘unreasonable’In the charge sheet of FIR 163, the police have described the workers’ demands as “unreasonable.”These demands included an increase in minimum wages, double overtime payment, weekly holidays and improved working conditions.The charge sheet states: “On 10/4/26 at 9 am in the Phase 2 police station area, employees of several companies blocked roads and main roads at various locations with their ‘unreasonable demands’.”At a press conference on the police charge sheet, activists said these demands relate to labour laws and workers’ rights, and argued that describing them as “unreasonable” raises questions about the framing of the protest in the police investigation.Interestingly, following the agitation, the UP government announced an amendment to minimum wages, raising them by approximately Rs 2,500.Alleged statements made before the policeThe documents state that Srishti and Manisha purportedly claimed to have been influenced by Marxist and Maoist ideologies. The police allege that Srishti confessed to participating in the planning of violent protests, joining Aditya in deciding a strategy to provoke the crowd into violence, inciting workers through videos, fostering an anti-administration atmosphere and transporting materials used in the violence to the location.According to the alleged statement of Himanshu, he discussed a plan to intensify the protest, the stay of Aditya and Rupesh at his residence on April 10, and arrangements to amplify the protest on April 11. The police claim that he also admitted to supplying stones, sticks and inflammable materials, described himself as influenced by Marxist ideology and stated that his “hidden agenda is Maoism”.Questioning these claims, advocate Kanwalpreet pointed out that the Supreme Court has recognised in numerous rulings that violence in police custody is a serious and widespread problem, and that courts therefore treat alleged confessional statements made before the police with caution.According to her, the statement appears to have been presented in an exaggerated form to strengthen the prosecution’s case, and there is a possibility that it was recorded under pressure.Kanwalpreet further said that this apprehension is strengthened by a petition filed in the Supreme Court by Rupesh and Aditya, in which both have accused the Noida Police of custodial torture. She said the medical reports of Aditya Anand attached to the petition also mention injuries he allegedly suffered during police custody.Alleged links with foreign and pro-Palestine organisationsBased on Akriti’s alleged statement in the charge sheet, the police have claimed that she admitted to having links with pro-Palestine groups such as International People’s Solidarity for Palestine (IPSP) and Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS).The charge sheet further alleges that she asked foreign contacts to use platforms such as Telegram and FaceTime to communicate so that the calls would not be recorded.According to the police, her mobile phone contained the numbers of three foreign contacts believed to be Gaza supporters. The police have further claimed that Akriti accepted the alleged plan to use these platforms to spread “anti-India propaganda” and create a violent movement by taking advantage of workers’ dissatisfaction.The manner in which the alleged links with pro-Palestine groups have been presented in the charge sheet raises a separate question: whether merely supporting Palestine or interacting with groups associated with the Palestinian cause can constitute evidence of criminal conduct.India’s support for the Palestine issue has long been part of its official foreign policy. In 1974, India became the first non-Arab country to recognise the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) as the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and, in 1988, was among the earliest countries to recognise Palestine as a state.In 1981, India also issued a postage stamp expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people.Photo: Wikimedia Commons.India’s diplomatic engagement with Palestine has extended beyond formal statements. In February 2018, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a visit to Palestine, the first by an Indian Prime Minister. Earlier, then External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj travelled to Palestine in January 2016, followed by then Minister of State for External Affairs M.J. Akbar in November 2016. Most recently, in December 2023, Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar reaffirmed India’s commitment to the Palestinian people during a phone conversation with the then Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh.However, if the police allege that an organisation or foreign contact was involved in inciting violence, illegal activities or any other crime in India, specific and independent evidence would be necessary to substantiate those allegations.Citing an alleged confession in a charge sheet and independently establishing the facts contained in that alleged confession are two different things.Similarly, questions arise over the police’s interpretation of the use of Telegram and FaceTime. Both are commonly used digital communication platforms, and a person’s choice of an application does not, by itself, indicate criminal activity. Even if the police allege that Akriti used Telegram and FaceTime to prevent call records of conversations from being available, that alone cannot establish that the conversations were criminal in nature.Regarding Akriti’s alleged statement, it is important to distinguish between the claims made in the charge sheet and independently established facts. What level of independent verification exists for the activities and alleged intentions described by the police? Have messages, documents, financial transactions, direct witnesses or other independent evidence been presented to support these claims? These remain important questions.According to Akriti’s acquaintances and the background information cited in the report, she has been associated with theatre and has spoken publicly about social issues. There is no record cited here of any previous criminal case or FIR against her.‘Glaring errors’ raise questions over the prosecution’s caseKanwalpreet told The Wire Hindi that, “If we study the four charge sheets filed by the UP Police in these cases, it becomes clear that there is no evidence of physical violence or inflammatory speeches against the accused, which can prove the claims of the prosecution.”Instead, she said, the charge sheets repeatedly refer to the alleged Marxist ideology of the accused, “giving the impression that an attempt is being made to criminalise the constitutional rights of workers to organise, trade union movements, democratic dissent and peaceful protests.”Many accused still in jail despite securing bailIn the 11 FIRs registered against activists arrested during the movement, many accused have been granted bail in individual cases but remain incarcerated because they have not secured bail in other cases.Almost all accused in FIRs 116, 117 and 157 have received bail. Five accused in FIR 165, five in FIR 164, five in FIR 151 and two in FIR 149 have also been granted bail.At the same time, with the exception of Rupesh’s brother Madhuresh, no one has secured bail in FIRs 163, 158 and 172.Overall, Manisha has secured bail in eight of 11 cases, while Yogesh and Rupesh have each been granted bail in six cases, Himanshu in seven, Aditya and Srishti in five each, Satyam in four and Akriti in three cases.The Wire Hindi has sent a list of questions related to the case to the police. The report will be updated when a response is received.Translated from the Hindi original by Naushin Rehman.