Law & Justice
Supreme Court Slams Noida Officials Over Notice to Student Despite Protection Order for Protesters
The Supreme Court on Wednesday sharply criticized the Gautam Budh Nagar administration for issuing a preventive notice to a 20-year-old law student, saying no executive magistrate had the authority to take such action given the court's explicit order shielding student protesters from prosecution.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said the court would demand an explanation from the district and executive magistrates of Gautam Budh Nagar after senior advocate Bishwajit Bhattacharyya raised the issue of a September 4 notice sent to Akshat Tripathi, a student at Gautam Buddha University.
"How could a magistrate dare to issue notice? We made clear no coercive action against any student! No magistrate could violate that order," the CJI said, noting that even though the notice was withdrawn the following day, its issuance appeared to breach the Supreme Court's September 1 order.
The September 1 order had invoked the court's special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to halt criminal proceedings stemming from protests organized by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) in July. The bench, which also included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and K V Mohan, ruled that FIRs filed between July 20 and 25 across the country in connection with the protests would not be pursued and would be considered closed. It further barred fresh FIRs related to the same events and clarified that simply participating in the protests did not constitute a criminal offense.
That order came after the central government, acting through Delhi Police, along with the governments of Maharashtra, Assam, Bihar and West Bengal, sought to have the related criminal cases dismissed. The Centre had informed the court it intended to honor commitments made during a July 25 meeting with protest organizers, including withdrawing FIRs from that period, refraining from new cases, and compensating families of NEET aspirants and other students who had died by suicide.
The court had left open the matter of 2,837 individuals whom Delhi Police identified as having criminal histories and being present at the protest site, allowing police to seek a single FIR to investigate their specific involvement in any violence or property damage.
Bhattacharyya told the court that despite the September 1 ruling, an executive magistrate issued a notice to Tripathi, a second-year student, based on a police report. He called the incident an "experiment with students of India" and asked the court to prevent similar occurrences.
"We are surprised how can an executive magistrate or a district magistrate issue a notice when our September 1 order was clear that no action can be taken against our youth for participating in the protest," the CJI said.
The notice, dated September 4 and rescinded the next day, accused Tripathi of spreading anti-government content and urging fellow students to join the CJP demonstration at Jantar Mantar. It demanded he explain why he shouldn't be required to post a personal bond of ₹5 lakh along with two sureties of the same amount to ensure peace for six months. The action was taken under preventive provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), with police alleging his conduct had created tension on campus and risked disturbing public order.
Police later withdrew the notice after determining the underlying information was inaccurate. It was also revealed that Tripathi had already left campus for his semester break and was in his hometown when the notice was served. Tripathi stated he had departed the university on May 25 for a three-month break and was in Prayagraj at the relevant time. While he confirmed attending the CJP protest at Jantar Mantar on July 20, he disputed claims that he had incited students on campus when he wasn't even present there.
The Supreme Court's rebuke follows a similar admonishment from the Allahabad High Court regarding the same district administration's treatment of another student activist, Akriti Chaudhary. In a ruling that overturned Chaudhary's preventive detention under the National Security Act, a bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdeva ordered that ₹5 lakh be deducted from the salary of Gautam Budh Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam as compensation to Chaudhary, and directed that the court's disapproval of the DM and police be noted in their service records.
The high court had accused the administration of "bureaucratic overreach," finding that a notice issued to Chaudhary under BNSS Section 130—supposedly prepared before her arrest—was actually drafted afterward, calling the process "ex post facto the arrest and nothing more than a sham." After reviewing police records, including General Diary entries, WhatsApp messages and videos, the court found no evidence that Chaudhary had incited rioting, arson or property destruction, ruling that her NSA detention could not be justified by mere assumptions or opinions. The high court also cautioned that IAS and IPS officers owe their allegiance to the Constitution rather than political leadership, warning that failure to uphold this principle could turn Uttar Pradesh into an "Orwellian Dystopia."
Given this context, the Supreme Court on Wednesday instructed Bhattacharyya to submit all relevant documentation. "You say that the notice has now been withdrawn. Have you been informed of this? Is there a communication?" the CJI asked. Upon learning that the withdrawal had only been reported through media coverage, the CJI responded: "We agree with you. How can an executive officer issue a notice after our order, which was unequivocal and any layman can understand its import... You put all facts and materials on record, and we will seek explanation from the Gautam Budh Nagar magistrate."
This remains a developing story.