Greater Noida Magistrate Suspended NEET Protest Notice

• A Greater Noida Executive Magistrate was suspended for issuing a notice to a student involved in NEET protests.
• The notice, issued under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 130, demanded a ₹5 lakh bond from law student Akasht Tripathi.
• This action directly contradicted a prior Supreme Court order that had quashed FIRs against peaceful NEET protestors.
• The Supreme Court, led by CJI Surya Kant, expressed strong concerns over the magistrate's disregard for its directive.
• The Uttar Pradesh government informed the Supreme Court of the magistrate's suspension during a hearing of the student's plea.

The Supreme Court had unequivocally stated that mere involvement in, or encouraging others to join, peaceful protests related to the NEET-UG 2026 controversy did not constitute an offense.

The Uttar Pradesh government has confirmed the suspension of a Greater Noida Executive Magistrate following the issuance of a controversial notice to a student involved in protests concerning the NEET paper leak. This development was communicated to a Supreme Court bench, presided over by CJI Surya Kant, by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta during a recent hearing. The magistrate's action targeted Akasht Tripathi, a second-year law student at Gautam Buddha University, who had allegedly participated in demonstrations led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) regarding the NEET paper leak.

The notice, dated September 4, 2026, was issued under provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), specifically Section 130. It demanded that Mr. Tripathi furnish a personal bond of ₹5 lakh, along with two sureties of the same amount, to show cause why he should not be bound down under Sections 126/135 BNSS. The allegations cited in the notice were vague, accusing him of "spreading anti-government misleading talks" and "instigating" fellow students to join a proposed, admittedly peaceful, dharna. This preventive action, described as "harshest" by the student's plea, was initiated just three days after a significant Supreme Court ruling.

The Executive Magistrate's notice directly contravened a clear order issued by the Supreme Court on September 1, 2026. That earlier ruling, made under Article 142 of the Constitution, had explicitly quashed all First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against students participating in the NEET paper leak protests. The Supreme Court had unequivocally stated that mere involvement in, or encouraging others to join, peaceful protests related to the NEET-UG 2026 controversy did not constitute an offense. Furthermore, it had directed that no new FIRs or proceedings should be initiated anywhere in the country concerning such protests, with a narrow exception for 2,873 named individuals with prior records of grave offenses involving bodily harm or property destruction.

Upon learning of the notice issued to Akasht Tripathi, the Supreme Court bench, including Justice Bagchi, expressed profound concern. CJI Surya Kant questioned the legality of such an action, emphasizing that the court's previous order was "very clear" against any penal action targeting students for peaceful demonstrations. The student's counsel highlighted that this incident, involving `preventive detention student protests India` under `Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 130`, amounted to an "experiment being played with the students of India" with "all-India implication," and suggested it constituted `contempt of court magistrate India`. The bench subsequently sought a detailed response from the District Magistrate regarding the matter.

This incident powerfully underscores the Supreme Court's firm stance against arbitrary preventive measures and any disregard for its judicial directives, particularly concerning fundamental rights like peaceful protest. The magistrate's decision to issue a bond notice, despite the explicit `CJI Surya Kant order peaceful protest` and the `NEET paper leak FIR quashing order`, prompted a swift and decisive response from the Uttar Pradesh government, culminating in the magistrate's suspension. The student's challenge to the notice, citing its direct contradiction of the Supreme Court's authoritative pronouncement, highlighted the importance of judicial oversight in safeguarding civil liberties.

The Supreme Court's insistence on a response from the District Magistrate further signals its commitment to ensuring that its orders are respected and implemented across all levels of administration. This case serves as a critical reminder that executive actions, especially those impacting the right to peaceful assembly, must align with established legal precedents and judicial pronouncements. The outcome reinforces the principle that executive authorities cannot arbitrarily impose stringent conditions like substantial personal bonds for peaceful protest, particularly when such actions directly undermine the highest court's clear directives.

This development underscores the Supreme Court's strict stance against arbitrary preventive action and disregard for its orders concerning peaceful protests. Lawyers should advise clients on the potential for challenging such notices and monitor the application of BNSS Section 130 in light of this judicial oversight, especially when it contravenes established judicial protections for fundamental rights.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlets.