The Supreme Court has sharply questioned the Greater Noida administration after an executive magistrate issued a ₹5 lakh personal bond notice to a Gautam Buddha University student who had participated in the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP)-led protest in Delhi.
The notice was issued despite an earlier Supreme Court order directing authorities not to take coercive action against students who participated in the 36-day protest.
The case came before a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant after senior advocate Bishwajit Bhattacharyya raised the matter during oral mentioning.
The student, Akshat Tripathi, a second-year student at Gautam Buddha University, had been served the notice after police accused him of allegedly encouraging other students to join the CJP protest. The notice was subsequently withdrawn.
But the withdrawal did little to prevent the issue from reaching the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Questions Magistrate’s Action
The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, questioned how a magistrate could initiate proceedings against a student when the court had already issued directions protecting students from coercive action.
Chief Justice Surya Kant reportedly questioned the authority’s decision and stressed that the earlier Supreme Court order was binding on officials.
The bench directed the lawyer to place the notice and relevant facts on record and indicated that an explanation would be sought from the Greater Noida Authority.
The confrontation has raised questions over whether local authorities acted in disregard of the Supreme Court’s earlier directions.
Student Faced ₹5 Lakh Bond Demand
According to the notice, issued on September 4 by the Court of the Executive Magistrate III, Greater Noida, proceedings were initiated on the basis of a police report.
Police alleged that Tripathi was spreading what they described as misleading anti-government discussions among university students and encouraging them to participate in the CJP-led agitation.
The police report claimed that his activities could create tension and potentially result in fighting or quarrelling, raising concerns over public peace and order.
Proceedings were initiated under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Tripathi was directed to explain why he should not be ordered to furnish a ₹5 lakh personal bond, along with two sureties of ₹5 lakh each.
The student denied the allegations and maintained that he had participated in the protest peacefully. He also said he was not attending university classes at the time of the demonstration.
Lawyer Calls Action a ‘Fear Psychosis’ Tactic
During the Supreme Court proceedings, senior advocate Bishwajit Bhattacharyya strongly objected to the notice, arguing that authorities could not use such proceedings to intimidate students.
He described the action as an “experiment with students of India” and argued that authorities in Noida and Uttar Pradesh should not be allowed to create a “fear psychosis” among students.
The lawyer further argued that simply withdrawing the notice did not automatically undo the alleged breach of the Supreme Court’s order.
According to the submissions reported during the hearing, Bhattacharyya argued that contempt could not simply disappear because the notice had subsequently been withdrawn.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, questioned whether any cause of action remained after the notice had been withdrawn.
Supreme Court Had Already Ordered FIRs Against Students Cancelled
The latest controversy comes days after the Supreme Court took significant steps concerning criminal cases linked to the CJP protests.
On August 31, Delhi Police informed the Supreme Court that it would not pursue 13 FIRs registered in connection with violence during the July 20 protest.
On September 1, the Supreme Court cancelled FIRs registered against students who had participated in CJP-led protests across the country between July 20 and July 25.
The court’s intervention followed the government’s position that protesters, barring those facing separate criminal cases, would not face further legal action.
How the CJP Protest Turned Into a Major Legal Battle
The CJP protest began on June 20, with protesters raising demands linked to alleged irregularities in the NEET examination.
The agitation continued for 36 days and witnessed a major confrontation on July 20, when protesters attempting to march towards Parliament clashed with security personnel. Police used lathis and tear gas to disperse the crowd.
The protest eventually ended following the resignation of then Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and the government’s acceptance of the protesters’ other demands.
The latest Greater Noida notice has now reopened questions about the treatment of students involved in the agitation.
With the Supreme Court seeking an explanation from the Greater Noida Authority, the focus is now on how the executive magistrate proceeded against Tripathi despite the top court’s earlier protection for students.
The case could also determine whether withdrawal of the notice is sufficient to settle the matter or whether the alleged violation of the Supreme Court’s directions requires further judicial scrutiny.
