Click the Play button to listen to article

A Gautam Buddh University student filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging a notice issued by the Greater Noida Executive Magistrate asking him to furnish a personal bond of ₹5 lakh and two sureties of the same amount for allegedly encouraging fellow students to join a proposed Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) dharna.

The notice was issued to petitioner Akshat Tripathi on September 4, 2026. In the petition, he has contended that the proceedings violate his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 and are contrary to the Supreme Court's September 1 order quashing FIRs against student protestors. The plea contends that the proposed dharna mentioned in the notice relates to the same protests that were considered by the Supreme Court in its September 1 order.

It argues that allowing such proceedings would enable authorities to circumvent the Supreme Court's directions by resorting to preventive proceedings before Executive Magistrates.

“The timing of the impugned Notice – issued a mere three days after the Order dated 01.09.2026 of this Hon'ble Court, and in relation to the very cause (the proposed CJP dharna) that was the subject matter of the said Order – raises a strong inference that the impugned proceeding is a colourable device to achieve indirectly, qua an individual student, what could not be done directly in view of this Hon'ble Court's Order and the Union of India's assurance recorded therein. Such action, if permitted to stand, would render the protection granted by this Hon'ble Court illusory and would set a precedent for circumventing binding directions of this Hon'ble Court through resort to preventive/security proceedings at the level of the Executive Magistrate”, the plea states.

The September 1 order was passed in proceedings related to nationwide student protests held from July 20 to 25, 2026, over alleged irregularities in NEET-UG 2026. The Supreme Court quashed FIRs arising from the protests in Delhi, Bihar, West Bengal, Assam and Maharashtra and directed closure of similar FIRs elsewhere.

It also barred fresh FIRs except against 2,873 identified persons with serious criminal antecedents involving bodily harm or destruction of public property. It also held that mere participation by young students in the peaceful protests did not constitute an offence.

Tripathi's petition states that he is not among the 2,873 persons covered by the exception and there is no allegation against him of bodily harm, destruction of public property or any criminal antecedents.

The issue was separately mentioned today by Senior Advocate Bishwajit Bhattacharyya before the bench led by CJI Surya Kant. He submitted that the notice, which was subsequently withdrawn, amounted to prima facie contempt as it was issued despite the Supreme Court's September 1 order.

The CJI questioned how the Executive Magistrate could issue such a notice when the Court had directed that no coercive action be taken against students. The Court asked Bhattacharyya to place the notice on record through a petition and indicated that it would seek an explanation from the authority.

The petition of Tripathi was filed through Advocate on Record Subhash Chandran KR. According to the petition, the notice invoked Section 126 BNSS, which permits an Executive Magistrate to require security for keeping the peace where there is information that a person is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb public tranquillity. It also invoked Section 135, which provides for an inquiry into the truth of such information. The notice proposed a ₹5 lakh personal bond with two sureties of the same amount for six months.

The notice was based on a report by a Sub-Inspector of Police Station Eco First alleging that Tripathi was spreading and instigating anti-government misleading talks among students to join the proposed CJP dharna. The report claimed that this had created considerable tension and students could fight, quarrel and breach peace and public order.

Tripathi's petition states that the notice did not disclose any specific date, time, statement, overt act or instance of actual or imminent violence attributable to him. It also states that no material supporting the allegations was supplied to him.

The petition also challenges the procedure followed by the Executive Magistrate. The notice dated September 4 fixed September 5 as the date for Tripathi's appearance. The plea highlights that he was given barely one day to engage counsel, understand the allegations and arrange the required sureties of ₹5 lakh each.

The plea argues that the proceedings are directly contrary to the September 1 order. It is further contended that the alleged act attributed to Tripathi, i.e., encouraging fellow students to join a proposed dharna, is protected by the rights to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b).

The petition argues that preventive proceedings of this nature cannot be used in the absence of an allegation of incitement to violence or a clear and present danger to public order. It further contends that the notice violates Article 14 because it is based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations without identifying any specific act by Tripathi.

Tripathi has also argued that requiring him to execute a personal bond of ₹5 lakh with two sureties of the same amount amounts to a serious deprivation of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. The plea contends that the single day given to him to respond to the notice and arrange the sureties was contrary to natural justice and rendered the procedure unfair and unreasonable.

Tripathi has therefore sought quashing of the September 4 notice and all proceedings arising from it. He has also sought a declaration that initiation of proceedings under Sections 126 and 135 BNSS against similarly situated students solely for participating in, or encouraging participation in, the protests connected with the NEET-UG 2026 controversy or CJP-led agitation is illegal, except in respect of the 2,873 persons identified by the Supreme Court.

The petition also seeks an interim order staying further proceedings pursuant to the September 4 notice. In addition, the plea seeks directions to the concerned authorities to take disciplinary action against the officials responsible for issuing the notice and initiating the proceedings, and submit a report on the action taken.

Case no. – Diary Number 55734/2026

Case Title – Akshat Tripathi v. State of U.P. & Ors.

Tags: