The Greater Noida Executive Magistrate has informed the Supreme Court that the notice requiring a law student to furnish a ₹5 lakh personal bond over a Cockroach Janta Party protest was withdrawn. The student’s petition argues that the preventive proceedings violated the Court’s earlier protection against coercive action arising from the protests.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Greater Noida Executive Magistrate has told the Supreme Court that the show-cause notice issued to law student Akshat Tripathi in connection with the Cockroach Janta Party-led student protests has been withdrawn.
The notice had required Tripathi, a student of Gautam Buddha University, to explain why he should not be directed to execute a personal bond of ₹5 lakh with two sureties of the same amount for allegedly encouraging other students to participate in a proposed protest.
The latest submission formally confirms the withdrawal that had earlier been reported when the matter was first brought before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. At that stage, the Court had sharply questioned how an Executive Magistrate could initiate proceedings against a student after the Supreme Court had ordered that no coercive action be taken against students over the CJP protests.
Notice Issued Under Preventive Provisions Of BNSS
The impugned notice was issued on September 4, 2026 by the Court of the Executive Magistrate-III, Greater Noida, Commissionerate Gautam Buddh Nagar. It invoked Sections 126 and 135 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, with the show-cause process initiated under Section 130.
These provisions permit an Executive Magistrate to seek security from a person where information is received that the person is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb public tranquillity, followed by an inquiry into the truth of that information.
The proceedings were based on a police report alleging that Tripathi was circulating “anti-government” statements among university students and encouraging them to join a proposed CJP dharna, which could allegedly lead to tension and a breach of peace.
Tripathi was directed to appear the very next day, September 5. His petition contended that a single day was plainly insufficient to engage counsel, understand the allegations and arrange a personal bond and two sureties of ₹5 lakh each.
Student Said Notice Circumvented Supreme Court’s Protection
Tripathi approached the Supreme Court arguing that the notice was contrary to its September 1 directions protecting students who participated in demonstrations linked to examination-paper leaks and the CJP agitation.
His petition described the preventive proceedings as an attempt to achieve indirectly what the authorities could not do directly after the Supreme Court’s order. It argued that merely encouraging students to participate in a peaceful protest is protected by the freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.
The student further contended that the notice did not identify any specific statement, overt act, date, time or instance of actual or imminent violence attributable to him. He maintained that he had no serious criminal antecedents and was not among the persons excluded from the protection granted by the Court.
Requiring a ₹5 lakh bond and two sureties in those circumstances, the plea argued, also affected his personal liberty under Article 21 and denied him a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Supreme Court Had Sought An Explanation
When the episode was initially mentioned, the Supreme Court expressed strong displeasure and indicated that it would seek an explanation from the concerned authority. Justice Joymalya Bagchi had also asked whether there was any formal communication confirming that the notice had been withdrawn.
Counsel for the student submitted that withdrawal did not necessarily close the question of whether the Court’s earlier directions had been violated. The issue, counsel argued, was broader than the continued operation of the notice because preventive proceedings could create fear among students despite the protection ordered by the Supreme Court.
The Executive Magistrate’s latest response now places the withdrawal formally before the Court. The confirmation removes the immediate requirement that Tripathi furnish the bond, though questions concerning the circumstances in which the notice was issued and the responsibility of the officers involved remain part of the controversy.
Dispute Over Action Taken Against Officials
The Uttar Pradesh government had earlier informed the Supreme Court that action had been taken following the notice. Tripathi subsequently alleged that the Court was given an incorrect impression that the Executive Magistrate had been suspended, whereas the police later clarified that a Sub-Inspector connected with the report and service of the notice had been suspended.
That allegation is the student’s case before the Court. The respective roles of the police officer who initiated or forwarded the report and the Executive Magistrate who issued the notice will have to be assessed from the official record.
ALSO READ: How The Supreme Court Used Article 142 To ‘Erase’ Student-Protest FIRs
Background: September 1 Protection For Student Protesters
On September 1, the Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 to close FIRs arising from the student protests held between July 20 and 25 in several States and directed that similar proceedings against students should not continue.
The protection was subject to an exception for identified persons with serious criminal antecedents involving bodily harm or destruction of public property. Tripathi’s petition states that he does not fall within that exception.
The present case therefore concerns whether preventive bond proceedings before an Executive Magistrate could be used against a student over conduct connected with the same protest movement after the Supreme Court’s protective directions. The formal withdrawal of the notice gives Tripathi immediate relief but leaves an institutional question about compliance with binding court orders.
Case Title: Akshat Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others
Case Number: Diary No. 55734/2026
Petition Filed Through: Advocate-on-Record Subhash Chandran K.R.
Status: Executive Magistrate has confirmed that the September 4 notice stands withdrawn.