The Supreme Court of India delivered a stern reprimand to the Executive Magistrate of Greater Noida for issuing a preventive notice to a university student who participated in a demonstration at Jantar Mantar in Delhi. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Suryakant expressed strong indignation over the administrative action, questioning how an executive official could disregard previous judicial orders prohibiting punitive measures against student protesters. The matter pertains to Akshat Tripathi, a student at Gautam Buddha University (GBU), who was directed by local authorities to submit a substantial monetary bond under preventive legal provisions on allegations of inciting unrest.
CJI Suryakant Questions Executive Authority and Violation of Directives
When a counsel brought the matter before the Supreme Court bench headed by CJI Suryakant, the Chief Justice issued sharp verbal commentary against the conduct of the Executive Magistrate. CJI Suryakant emphasized that the apex court had already quashed First Information Reports (FIRs) associated with student demonstrations and explicitly barred state authorities from initiating coercive proceedings against any student involved in protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). The Chief Justice reiterated that no executive magistrate holds the authority to breach binding Supreme Court directives by serving show-cause orders to students engaged in peaceful agitation.
Details of the Rs 5 Lakh Bond Notice Under BNSS Provisions
The controversy stems from an order issued on September 4 by the office of the Third Executive Magistrate under the Greater Noida Commissionerate. Formulated under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the proceedings originated from a report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police under Sections 126 and 135. The notice directed Akshat Tripathi to appear on September 5 and show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a personal bond of Rs 5 lakh alongside two local solvent sureties of equal value to guarantee peace for six months. Following widespread public criticism, police authorities stated that the notice was officially revoked on September 4.
Police Allegations Versus Student Akshat Tripathi's Counter-Claims
According to the police documentation prepared by Sub-Inspector Shiv Pandey at the Ecotech-1 police station and forwarded by the Station House Officer, Tripathi was accused of spreading misleading and anti-government narratives. The report alleged that Tripathi, a native of Jhusi in Prayagraj currently residing in Ecotech-1 while studying at GBU, was encouraging peers to join the CJP-led demonstration, thereby risking public tranquility on campus. Responding through a video statement on social media, Tripathi rejected the charges, asserting that his participation was entirely peaceful. He clarified that university classes were suspended due to a three-month campus closure, adding that he had sustained injuries during a police action on July 20 while marching toward Parliament.
Supreme Court Enforcement and Administrative Retraction
The Supreme Court focused on ensuring strict adherence to its ruling that insulates student activists from unwarranted police or administrative harassment. Although officials at the Ecotech-1 police station maintained that prompt corrective action was taken on September 4 to cancel the notice once the error was identified, the court underscored the gravity of executive overreach. The strong stance taken by the Supreme Court serves as an explicit warning to local administration against employing preventive bond provisions to curb student participation in public demonstrations.
