Supreme Court: Greater Noida Defies CJP Protest Order, Seeks Explanation

• The Supreme Court will demand an explanation from Greater Noida authorities for issuing a notice to a student involved in CJP protests.
• This notice was issued despite the Supreme Court's prior order to close all criminal proceedings related to the protests.
• A bench including CJI Surya Kant had explicitly stated that no penal action should be taken against students for their participation.
• Senior Advocate Biswajeet Bhattacharya highlighted the Greater Noida Executive Magistrate's defiance of the apex court's September 1 ruling.
• Concerns remain as the reported withdrawal of the notice has not been officially confirmed, only appearing in media reports.

The Supreme Court's decision comes in the wake of a clear directive it had previously issued, mandating the closure of all criminal proceedings initiated in connection with these specific demonstrations.

India's Supreme Court has announced its intention to seek a formal explanation from authorities in Greater Noida regarding the issuance of a notice to a second-year student. This notice pertained to the student's involvement in recent protests led by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) at Jantar Mantar. The apex court's decision comes in the wake of a clear directive it had previously issued, mandating the closure of all criminal proceedings initiated in connection with these specific demonstrations.

Senior Advocate Biswajeet Bhattacharya brought the matter to the Supreme Court's attention, highlighting that an Executive Magistrate in Greater Noida had issued the September 4 notice. This action, taken based on inputs from the Noida Police, directly targeted a student who participated in the CJP protests. Bhattacharya underscored that this move represented a blatant disregard for the Supreme Court's September 1 ruling, which had explicitly prohibited further penal action against participants.

The Supreme Court's earlier order, issued on September 1, unequivocally stipulated that no further criminal action should be pursued against individuals for their involvement in the CJP protests. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, emphasized the clarity of this directive. CJI Kant himself stated, "No penal action against students. The language is very clear in our order," reinforcing the court's stance against any legal repercussions for the students.

Senior Advocate Bhattacharya warned the court that the defiance by the Greater Noida authority, if left unaddressed, could have significant "all-India implication." He characterized the situation as an "experiment being played with the students of India," suggesting that such actions could set a dangerous precedent for legal action against student protests across the country. The case thus extends beyond a single incident, touching upon the broader legal implications for student activism and the judiciary's role in safeguarding civil liberties.

Adding another layer of complexity, the September 4 notice was reportedly withdrawn at a later stage. However, Bhattacharya informed the Supreme Court that no official order confirming this withdrawal had been served to the affected student or his representatives. He noted that the information regarding the notice's withdrawal had only surfaced through media reports, leaving the official status of the legal action against the student unclear and raising questions about transparency and due process in the Greater Noida authority's handling of the matter.

This case underscores the Supreme Court's resolve to enforce its orders against lower authorities, particularly regarding fundamental rights and quashed criminal proceedings. Lawyers should advise clients on the implications of such defiance and consider potential contempt actions if judicial directives are ignored.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlet