How dare you? CJI blasts Greater Noida magistrate over notice to CJP protester

The Supreme Court lashed out at the Greater Noida executive magistrate, saying that how he could issue a Rs 5 lakh notice to a Gautam Buddha University student over his participation in the CJP protest at Delhi's Jantar Mantar.

In Short

• Greater Noida student got Rs 5 lakh notice for joining CJP's Jantar Mantar stir
• CJI Surya Kant said no Magistrate can violate court's order protecting students
• Notice claimed student encouraged others to join protest, spread anti-govt views

The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned how a Greater Noida executive magistrate could issue a notice to a student who participated in the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest in Delhi's Jantar Mantar, despite the court's earlier order barring coercive action against students over the 36-day stir.

The court's rap came after a Gautam Buddha University student, Akshat Tripathi, in Greater Noida was issued a notice to furnish a Rs 5 lakh personal bond for joining the CJP protest in Delhi. Police, which later revoked the notice, alleged he had encouraged other students to join the protest.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, who was heading a three-judge bench, said the top court had already passed a clear order protecting students from penal 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 issue was raised through oral mentioning by Senior advocate Bishwajit Bhattacharyya, who told the bench that an Executive Magistrate in Greater Noida had issued a notice to a second-year student of Gautam Buddha University, Akshat Tripathi, directing him to show cause why he should not furnish a personal bond of Rs 5 lakh to preserve peace. According to LiveLaw, the notice was later withdrawn.

CJI Kant said the court was "surprised" that such a notice had been issued 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, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, directed the lawyer to place the facts and the notice on record, saying it would seek an explanation from the Greater Noida Authority.

On August 31, the Delhi Police told the Supreme Court that it would cancel 13 FIRs registered against those involved in the July 20 violence during the CJP protest. This came after the Delhi government said no further legal action would be taken against protesters, excluding those having criminal cases.

On September 1, the Supreme Court cancelled all FIRs registered against students who participated in the CJP-led protests across the country between July 20 and 25.

The CJP protest saw clashes between protesters and security personnel on July 20, with police using lathis and tear gas to disperse those marching towards Parliament. The protest, launched over NEET irregularities, began on June 20 and ended after the resignation of then Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, and the government accepting the CJP's other demands.

WHAT DID THE NOTICE SAY?

According to LiveLaw, the notice was issued by the Court of the Executive Magistrate III, Greater Noida, on September 4 based on a police report. The police alleged that the student, Akshat Tripathi, was "spreading and instigating anti-government misleading talks" among university students and encouraging them to join the CJP-led protest.

The police report claimed Tripathi's activities had created tension and could lead to fighting or quarrelling, resulting in a breach of peace and public order. The notice was issued on September 4 under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The executive magistrate said there were sufficient grounds to initiate proceedings and directed Tripathi to show cause as to 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 denied the allegations, saying he had participated in the protest peacefully and was not attending university classes at the time.

LAWYER CALLS NOTICE 'EXPERIMENT ON STUDENTS'

During the hearing, advocate Bhattacharyya described the action as an "experiment with students of India" and said authorities in Noida and Uttar Pradesh could not create a "fear psychosis" among students, LiveLaw reported.

He also argued that withdrawing the notice did not erase the violation of the Supreme Court's order. "Contempt, once committed, cannot be purged by simply withdrawing the notice," the lawyer submitted, according to LiveLaw, calling it contempt of court.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked whether any cause of action survived if the notice had already been withdrawn. The lawyer maintained that the contempt remained.

The Supreme Court has now indicated that it will examine the matter and seek an explanation from the Greater Noida Authority.

- Ends
(with inputs from PTI)