SC questions Noida magistrate over CJP protest bond notice

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked how a Greater Noida executive magistrate could serve a Rs 5 lakh peace-bond notice on a university student over Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests after the court had already quashed protest FIRs and barred penal action against students.

The oral exchange came before a three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana. Senior advocate Bishwajit Bhattacharyya flagged a newspaper report on the notice issued to Akshat Tripathi, a second-year law student at Gautam Buddha University.

"We are surprised; how did the magistrate dare to issue a notice when we have already annulled, and we have directed that on already registered (FIRs), no action will be taken," the Chief Justice said, according to The Indian Express.

The September 4 notice, later revoked, asked Tripathi to show cause why he should not execute a personal bond of Rs 5 lakh with two sureties of the same amount to keep the peace. Police had alleged he was "spreading anti-government, misleading statements among other university students and provoking them" in a way that could "disrupt public peace."

Tripathi, who was in Prayagraj when the notice went out, has denied the charge. He told The Indian Express he had not been on campus for three months — a two-month holiday began May 25, classes later moved online, and he was working at the Allahabad High Court in July.

What we can verify

• Court's reaction: CJI Surya Kant said the September 1 order was "very clear-cut" and that "even a layman can understand" there was to be "no penal action against any student." He said an executive or district magistrate "cannot violate that order." — The Indian Express; Deccan Herald
• Explanation sought: After being told the notice had been withdrawn, the Chief Justice said the court "would have immediately taken cognisance" otherwise, and asked the lawyer to place the facts on record. "We will ask (for) an explanation from the district magistrate. Let him explain." — The Indian Express; India Today
• Notice already withdrawn: The Greater Noida Executive Magistrate's September 4 BNSS Section 130 notice to Tripathi was revoked after the Supreme Court's September 1 order quashing CJP protest FIRs. — The Indian Express
• Writ petition: LiveLaw reports Tripathi has also filed a writ petition (Diary No. 55734/2026, Akshat Tripathi v. State of U.P. & Ors.) seeking to quash the notice as a colourable attempt to circumvent the September 1 directions through preventive magistrate proceedings. The plea says he is not among the 2,873 persons the court excepted for serious criminal antecedents. — LiveLaw
• September 1 order: The same bench invoked Article 142 to quash FIRs from the July 20–25 student protests in several states and barred further penal action against students, except identified persons with serious criminal antecedents. — LiveLaw

Bhattacharyya called the notice an "experiment" on students with "all-India implication" and argued it was "prima facie contempt," even after withdrawal. "Contempt can't be purged," he told the bench. Justice Bagchi asked him to put the facts on record.

CJP News reported the Noida notice and its revocation on September 8. Wednesday's hearing is the first time the Supreme Court has spoken to that specific order on the record.

What remains unverified

• Whether the court has formally issued notice seeking the magistrate's explanation, or only indicated it will do so once papers are filed. [unverified]
• Whether contempt proceedings will be initiated; the bench did not take cognisance on Wednesday because the notice had been withdrawn. [unverified]
• Whether similar BNSS peace-bond notices were issued to other students outside Gautam Buddha Nagar. [unverified]