The Greater Noida Executive Magistrate who issued a show-cause notice to a student, asking him to furnish a personal bond of Rs 5 lakhs, over his alleged campaign for a protest by the Cockroach Janata Party, has been suspended, said the Solicitor General of India in the Supreme Court today.

The law officer made this statement while responding to a writ petition filed by the student, Akshat Tripathi of the Gautam Buddh University, challenging the Executive Magistrate's notice issued under Section 130 of the BNSS.

Senior Advocate PV Dinesh mentioned the petition before a bench led by the Chief Justice of India during the hearing of the other matters connected to the July student protests. "A strong message must go to the officers," the senior counsel said, urging the bench to take the petition on board. The notice mentioned that he was indulging in "anti-government misleading talks" among the students and asked him to furnish a bond, Dinesh underscored.

CJI Surya Kant pointed out that when the matter was mentioned before him yesterday, he had taken a strong view of it, and sought the response of the State.

SG Tushar Mehta then informed the Court that the officer has been suspended.

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 of the Supreme Court which quashed the FIRs related to the student protests and barred coercive actions against students. 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).

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.

Case no. – Diary Number 55734/2026

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