Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Wednesday reprimanded a Noida Executive Magistrate for issuing a notice to a student who participated in a CJP (Cockroach Janta Party) protest, despite the Supreme Court having directed that no coercive action be taken against students over such demonstrations.
The CJI said the Supreme Court had already quashed FIRs related to student protests and directed that no coercive action be taken against students in connection with such demonstrations in the future.
“How dare an Executive Magistrate issue a notice to a student when the Supreme Court has passed such an order?” the CJI asked. He also made it clear that no Magistrate could violate the Supreme Court’s directions.
Magistrate issued notice seeking ₹5 lakh bond
On 4th September, the Third Executive Magistrate’s Court of the Noida Commissionerate issued a notice to student Akshat Tripathi, who had participated in a CJP protest.
The notice asked him to furnish a personal bond of ₹5 lakh and produce two sureties for the same amount. The student later posted a video on Tuesday, alleging that he was being threatened for participating in the protest despite the Supreme Court’s order. He also sought a fair investigation into the matter.
During Wednesday’s hearing in the Supreme Court, senior advocate Vishwajeet Bhattacharya verbally brought the matter to the attention of the bench headed by the CJI.
He said the Executive Magistrate had issued a notice asking why the student should not be required to furnish a personal bond of ₹5 lakh to maintain peace. The notice was later withdrawn.
Bhattacharya said the action was prima facie contempt of court and argued that officials in Noida and Uttar Pradesh could not create an atmosphere of fear among students.
Student was booked under BNSS Section 130
Akshat Tripathi is a resident of Jhunsi in Prayagraj and is pursuing a BA-LLB at Gautam Buddha University (GBU).
On September 4, 2026, the office of the Third Executive Magistrate of the Noida Commissionerate issued a notice to him under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The notice said there were sufficient grounds to believe that Tripathi was encouraging university students to participate in the proposed CJP protest. It also alleged that he was spreading anti-government and misleading information among students.
According to the notice, such activities could create tension and affect public order.
Tripathi was asked why he should not be bound to maintain peace for six months. He was directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹5 lakh along with two sureties of the same amount. The hearing in the matter was scheduled for September 5.
This is the notice that was issued to the student by the office of the Third Executive Magistrate of the Noida Commissionerate.
SC says it will seek response from district magistrate
Advocate Bhattacharya told the Supreme Court, “An experiment is being conducted with the students of India. Its impact will be felt across the country. First, contempt was committed and then withdrawn. Such contempt cannot be remedied in this manner.”
He said the action amounted to contempt of the dignity of the court. “Officials in Noida and UP cannot create an atmosphere of fear among students,” he said.
CJI Surya Kant assured him, saying, “We will seek a response from the district magistrate on this.”
Notice issued on 4 September, cancelled the next day
Akshat Tripathi, a resident of Jhunsi in Prayagraj, is pursuing a BA-LLB at Gautam Buddha University (GBU). He is also a member of the Uttar Pradesh state committee of the Students’ Federation of India (SFI).
On 4 September, 2026, the office of the Third Executive Magistrate of the Noida Commissionerate issued a notice to him under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The notice said there were sufficient grounds to believe that Tripathi was encouraging university students to participate in the proposed CJP protest. It alleged that he was spreading anti-government and misleading information among students, which could create tension and affect public order.
Tripathi was asked why he should not be bound over to maintain peace for six months. He was asked to furnish a personal bond of ₹5 lakh, along with two sureties for the same amount. The matter was scheduled for hearing on September 5.
ACP Ravi Shankar said:
“Akshat Tripathi’s name surfaced during the investigation. It was found that he had gone to participate in a protest at Jantar Mantar. The police sent the notice to the student through WhatsApp. The notice was cancelled on September 5 after the investigation found that the student was not present there at the time.”
The ACP also said that in November, Tripathi had made a video claiming that he would commit suicide, which later went viral. He subsequently went missing, following which the police searched for him.
The picture is of student Akshat Tripathi. On Tuesday, he released a video and said – I am a student. In such a situation, how is the condition of such a large amount practical for me?
Student asks in video: ‘Is speaking against government policies a crime?’
Tripathi posted a video on social media on Tuesday, claiming that he was being threatened despite the Supreme Court’s order in connection with the CJP protest.
He questioned whether peacefully protesting against government policies or issues such as paper leaks amounted to a crime in a democracy. He said he had received the notice from the Greater Noida magistrate, which required him to furnish a personal bond of ₹5 lakh.
“I am a student and have no personal income. How is such a large financial condition practical for me?” he asked.
The notice alleged that by participating in the 20th July protest against paper leaks at Jantar Mantar, he had instigated university students against the government.
Tripathi questioned how criticising government policies, questioning the government or raising one’s voice against paper leaks could be considered instigation. He also sought the basis and evidence for the allegations against him.
He said he had not attended the university for three months and had returned to his home in Allahabad about a month and a half before the July 20 protest.
“If I was not even in the university, how could I have instigated its students?” he asked, condemning the action and demanding a fair investigation.
