The Uttar Pradesh government should not think of those who protested for higher wages in Noida on April 13 as “terrorists”, the Supreme Court said on Friday (May 15, 2026), reminding the State of its obligation to provide a “living wage” to workers, in accordance with the Constitution’s Directive Principles of State Policy.

“They were asking for higher wages… don’t think they are terrorists,” Justice B.V. Nagarathna, heading a two-person Bench including JustIce Ujjal Bhuyan, told the Uttar Pradesh counsel.

Detained under the NSA

Appearing for the petitioners — who are family members of protestors detained and jailed by the U.P. police under the National Security Act — senior advocate Colin Gonsalves and advocate Shahrukh Alam said the authorities have registered multiple FIRs against the protestors citing the same conspiracy, and without any preliminary enquiry.

Ms. Alam said the only tag the authorities could find against the detainees were that they were “left-wing sympathisers”.

Directive principles

“Is it not that the Directive Principles of State Policy require the State to ensure that living wages are paid to workers?” Justice Bhuyan asked.

Ms. Alam pointed to Article 43 of the Constitution which mandates that the State “shall endeavour”, through law or economic organisation or any other legitimate way, to secure to all workers, including agricultural and industrial, a “living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities”.

Instead of fulfilling its obligations, the advocate noted, the State has detained them as “agent provocateurs” of the protest in Noida.

‘Tortured in police custody’

The Bench directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to produce two young men, said to be detained in Kasna jail, at 2 p.m. on May 18 in the Supreme Court. Their family members had also moved a habeas corpus petition in the Allahabad High Court to know their whereabouts.

The court also stopped the State from moving these two men out of judicial custody into police remand. The brothers of one of the detainees, Aditya Anand, had alleged that the detainees had been tortured in police custody.

Mr. Gonsalves, appearing for Mr. Anand’s family, submitted that he was an engineer working in a factory and also ran a library for children. The senior counsel said that Mr. Anand’s speeches at the protests were centred on workers’ rights, adding that recordings were available to prove his point.