The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned how an executive magistrate in Greater Noida could issue a notice to a student for participating in the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest at Delhi's Jantar Mantar, despite an earlier court order prohibiting coercive action against students involved in the 36-day agitation.
The court's criticism came after Akshat Tripathi, a student of Gautam Buddha University in Greater Noida, received a notice directing him to furnish a personal bond of Rs 5 lakh for taking part in the CJP protest in Delhi. Police later withdrew the notice but had alleged that Tripathi had encouraged other students to participate in the agitation.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who led the three-judge bench, pointed out that the Supreme Court had already issued a clear order protecting students from punitive action. "How could a Magistrate dare to issue notice? We made clear no coercive action against any student. No Magistrate could violate that order," LiveLaw quoted the CJI as saying.
The matter was brought to the court's attention through oral mentioning by senior advocate Bishwajit Bhattacharyya. He informed the bench that the executive magistrate in Greater Noida had issued the notice to Tripathi, a second-year student, asking him to explain why he should not be directed to furnish a Rs 5 lakh personal bond to maintain peace. The notice was subsequently withdrawn, according to LiveLaw.
CJI Kant said the court was "surprised" that such an action had been taken despite its earlier directions. "There is no question of taking action against our youth. We have passed a clear order," PTI quoted him as saying.
The bench, comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana along with CJI Kant, asked the lawyer to submit the relevant facts and the notice on record. It said an explanation would be sought from the Greater Noida Authority.
On August 31, Delhi Police informed the Supreme Court that it would withdraw 13 FIRs filed in connection with the July 20 violence during the CJP protest. The development followed the Delhi government's statement that no further legal action would be initiated against protesters, except those facing criminal cases.
The Supreme Court on September 1 cancelled all FIRs filed against students who had taken part in CJP-led protests across the country between July 20 and 25.
The protest witnessed clashes between demonstrators and security forces on July 20, when police used lathis and tear gas to disperse protesters marching towards Parliament. The agitation began on June 20 over alleged NEET irregularities and concluded following the resignation of then Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and the government's acceptance of the CJP's remaining demands.
WHAT DID THE NOTICE SAY?
LiveLaw reported that the notice was issued on September 4 by the Court of Executive Magistrate III, Greater Noida, following a police report. The police accused Tripathi of "spreading and instigating anti-government misleading talks" among university students and of motivating them to join the CJP protest.
According to the police report, his alleged activities had created tension and could potentially trigger fights or disputes, resulting in a breach of peace and public order. The notice was issued under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The executive magistrate said there were adequate grounds to begin proceedings and asked Tripathi to explain why he should not be required to execute a personal bond of Rs 5 lakh, along with two sureties of Rs 5 lakh each.
Tripathi rejected the allegations, maintaining that he had participated in the protest peacefully and was not attending university classes during that period.
LAWYER CALLS NOTICE 'EXPERIMENT ON STUDENTS'
During the proceedings, advocate Bhattacharyya described the action as an "experiment with students of India". He argued that authorities in Noida and Uttar Pradesh should not create a "fear psychosis" among students, LiveLaw reported.
He further submitted that withdrawing the notice did not undo the alleged violation of the Supreme Court's order. "Contempt, once committed, cannot be purged by simply withdrawing the notice," he argued, according to LiveLaw, alleging contempt of court.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned whether any cause of action remained after the notice had been withdrawn. The lawyer argued that the alleged contempt continued to exist.
The Supreme Court has indicated that it will examine the matter and seek an explanation from the Greater Noida Authority.
