Chief Justice of India Surya Kant questioned how an executive magistrate dared to issue a preventive notice to student Akshat Tripathi in violation of clear court directions.
The Supreme Court had on September 1 invoked Article 142 to close criminal proceedings and prohibit fresh FIRs regarding the July Jantar Mantar protests.
The Gautam Budh Nagar administration issued the notice under preventive provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita before subsequently withdrawing it.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday strongly criticised the Gautam Budh Nagar administration over a preventive notice issued to 20-year-old law student Akshat Tripathi, even though its September 1 order had protected students linked to the Jantar Mantar protests. Hindustan Times reported that Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said the bench would seek an explanation from the district and executive magistrates.
Senior advocate Bishwajit Bhattacharyya alerted the bench to a September 4 notice issued to Gautam Buddha University student Tripathi and withdrawn the next day. “How could a Magistrate dare to issue notice? We made clear no coercive action against any student! No Magistrate could violate that order,” the CJI said.
The bench treated the notice as a prima facie breach of the September 1 order. “There’s no question of taking action against any youth in view of our categorical and clear order. Nobody dare violate our orders,” the CJI said.
September First Order
On September 1, the court used Article 142 of the Constitution to bring criminal proceedings from the July protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) to a close. The bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and K V Mohana ordered that FIRs filed between July 20 and 25 across states and Union territories would not be pursued or investigated and would be treated as closed for all purposes.
It also barred any new FIR over the same incidents and made clear that simply taking part in the protests would not amount to an offence under criminal law.
The order came on applications from the Centre through Delhi Police and the governments of Maharashtra, Assam, Bihar and West Bengal. The Centre informed the court that it would stand by assurances made after a July 25 meeting with representatives of the protesting group, including withdrawal of FIRs filed between July 20 and 25, no new criminal cases over those events and compensation to the families of NEET aspirants and other students who died by suicide.
The court, however, kept open for separate consideration the case of 2,837 people whom Delhi Police said had criminal antecedents and were apparently present at the protest site. Police had sought leave to file one FIR so that their individual roles, if any, in incidents involving bodily harm or damage to public property could be assessed.
Tripathi Notice Details
Bhattacharyya pressed the issue before the court, describing the notice episode as an “experiment with students of India” and asking for steps to prevent a repeat.
The CJI replied with another sharp remark. “We are surprised how can an executive magistrate or a district magistrate issue a notice when our September 1 order was clear that no action can be taken against our youth for participating in the protest,” the CJI said.
The Indian Express reported that the September 4 notice, which was withdrawn the following day, said Tripathi had spread anti-government information and encouraged students to join the CJP protest at Jantar Mantar. It asked him to explain why he should not be required to furnish a personal bond of ₹ 5 lakh and two sureties of the same amount for six months, and the proceedings were initiated under preventive provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The paper also reported that police said Tripathi's activities had created tension on the GBU campus and could lead to a confrontation affecting public order. Police later withdrew the notice after an inquiry concluded that the underlying information was false.
Tripathi said he had left the GBU campus on May 25 for a three-month semester break and was in Prayagraj when the notice was issued. He acknowledged attending the CJP protest at Jantar Mantar on July 20, but questioned how he could be accused of inciting students on campus when he was not there.
High Court Backdrop
The Supreme Court's reaction came days after the Allahabad High Court criticised the same district administration in a separate case involving student activist Akriti Chaudhary. The high court quashed Chaudhary's preventive detention under the National Security Act.
A bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdeva ordered that ₹ 5 lakh be recovered from the salary of Gautam Budh Nagar District Magistrate Medha Roopam as compensation to Chaudhary. It also ordered that the DM's and police's conduct be entered in their service records.
The high court found that a notice under Section 130 of the BNSS had been drawn up after Chaudhary was already in custody. It called the process “ex post facto the arrest and nothing more than a sham”.
After reviewing police material, including General Diary entries and WhatsApp chats and videos relied on by the state, the court found no material showing that Chaudhary had urged people to riot, commit arson or destroy public or private property. It also said officers owed their loyalty to the Constitution, not the political executive, and warned that forgetting that could turn Uttar Pradesh into “an Orwellian Dystopia”.
Against that background, the Supreme Court asked Bhattacharyya to put all the relevant material on record. “You say that the notice has now been withdrawn. Have you been informed of this? Is there a communication?” the CJI asked.
When told that the withdrawal had only been reported in the press, the CJI said: “We agree with you. How can an executive officer issue a notice after our order, which was unequivocal and any layman can understand its import…You put all facts and materials on record, and we will seek explanation from the Gautam Budh Nagar magistrate,” the CJI said.
