New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday strongly criticised the issuance of a notice to a student in Greater Noida over his alleged participation in the Cockroach Janata Party protests, questioning how an Executive Magistrate could take such action despite a clear court order.
The matter involved Akshat Tripathi, a second year student of Gautam Buddh University, who received a notice from the Greater Noida Executive Magistrate on September 4. The notice accused him of circulating anti government information and encouraging students to participate in the CJP protest at Jantar Mantar.
The notice was withdrawn the following day, but the incident was brought before the Supreme Court by senior advocate Bishwajit Bhattacharyya. The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, expressed strong displeasure over the action.
The court pointed out that its September 1 order had expressly prohibited coercive action against students connected with the protests. The bench questioned how a magistrate could issue such a notice when the court’s directions were unambiguous.
The Supreme Court had earlier exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash cases against students arising from the CJP protests. It directed that FIRs registered between July 20 and 25 across states and Union territories in connection with the demonstrations would not be pursued or investigated and would be treated as closed.
The court had also specifically ordered that no fresh action be initiated against students in relation to the protests.
Chief Justice Surya Kant said the court would seek an explanation from the Gautam Buddh Nagar district and executive magistrates concerning the notice issued to Tripathi.
Bhattacharyya described the incident as an “experiment with students of India” and urged the court to ensure that similar actions were not repeated.
The Chief Justice agreed with the concern and said the court was surprised that an Executive Magistrate or District Magistrate had issued a notice despite the Supreme Court’s clear directions.
