‘How Could a Magistrate Dare to Issue This Notice?’: Supreme Court Questions Greater Noida Magistrate’s Bond Notice Over CJP Protests

Key Points:

ON WEDNESDAY, September 9, 2026, the Supreme Court slammed the Greater Noida Executive Magistrate over a notice issued to a student of Gautam Buddha University (GBU) in relation to the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) protest held . The Court questioned that if it had already ordered to quash all FIRs, and other penal or coercive actions related to the CJP protest, then how could the magistrate issue this notice.

The Supreme Court, during its September 1, 2026 hearing, quashed all the FIRs against protesters who took part in the CJP-led student protest at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. The Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do “complete justice” for the students who were protesting over the NEET-UG paper leak.

The petition was heard by a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The matter was orally mentioned by Senior Advocate Biswajit Bhattacharya. The other two members of the bench were Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.

Supreme Court Slams Greater Noida Magistrate

Senior Advocate Bhattacharya told the Court during the hearing that a notice had been issued against a second-year student of GBU, Akshat Tripathi, by the Executive Magistrate III, Greater Noida Commissionerate. The notice asked him to explain why he should not be required to provide a personal bond of ₹5 lakh as a guarantee that he would maintain peace.

See Also: “Manage Crowds, Don’t Restrict Faith”: Allahabad High Court Orders Removal of Namaz Worshipers Cap in Sambhal, UP; Emphasizes State’s Duty to Protect Religious Rights

Advocate Bhattacharya explained that the notice was issued on the basis of a police report alleging that Tripathi had been  encouraging students to participate in the CJP protest. He further alleged that issuing the notice amounted to contempt of the Supreme Court.

"Notice was issued to a 2nd year student by Ex. Magistrate of Greater Noida on input of Noida police...it was about to be executed...later on it came in the press that it has been withdrawn. This is an experiment with students of India. This is prima facie contempt. Authorities of Noida and UP can't create fear psychosis among students," the lawyer said, as quoted by LiveLaw.

Following this, the CJI questioned how the magistrate could proceed against the student despite the earlier order of the Supreme Court. "How could a Magistrate dare to issue notice? We made clear no coercive action against any student! No Magistrate could violate that order." Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked whether if the notice was being withdrawn, any cause of action still survives. The advocate replied that the contempt of court had already been committed and that withdrawing the notice did not erase it.

He submitted, “It is contempt of the majesty of this Court. This is the highest court of the country, which is holding the court of our democracy." The CJI further asked the lawyer to place the notice and all other relevant facts and evidence on record through a petition, indicating that the Court would seek an explanation from the concerned authority.

What Was The Notice Issued To The Student?

The notice was issued on September 4, 2026, by the court of the Executive Magistrate III, Greater Noida, under Sections 126 and 135 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

See Also: Junaid Malik, CJP Protest Food Volunteer, Moves Supreme Court Alleging Family Harassment and Illegal Detention

The reason for the notice was a police report cited in the notice, which alleged that Akshat was “spreading and instigating anti-government and misleading talks” among students and encouraging them to participate in the CJP protest.

The report further mentioned that Akshat’s activities had created considerable tension. The magistrate said that, based on the activities mentioned in the police report, there were sufficient grounds to initiate proceedings because of the possibility of a breach of peace.

Hence, Tripathi was directed to show cause as to why he should not be required to execute a personal bond of ₹5 lakh along with two sureties of ₹5 lakh each.

Allahabad High Court’s Recent Order

The Supreme Court’s observations on the above case came just days after Allahabad High Court criticized the Gautam Buddha Nagar District Magistrate for ordering the detention of a Delhi University graduate.

Gautam Buddha Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam, who is the daughter of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, issued an order to detain 25-year-old Delhi University (DU) graduate and student activist Aakriti Chaudhary under the National Security Act (NSA) over her participation in the Noida Workers’ protest in April 2026.

Aakriti Chaudhary was later awarded compensation of ₹5 lakh by the High Court, and her detention order was quashed. The Court said that the compensation amount would be recovered from Roopam and other officials involved in the decision.

The Court said, “It shan’t be long before the errant in the bureaucracy reduces the state of Uttar Pradesh to an Orwellian Dystopia,” reported LiveLaw.

Suggested Reading: