SC Fury Over Student Notice Despite Protection Order

New Delhi, September 09, 2026 The Supreme Court on Wednesday sharply questioned the issuance of a notice to a Greater Noida student over his alleged involvement in the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) protests in July. The bench expressed displeasure that such action was taken despite its earlier order specifically preventing coercive measures against students connected with the demonstrations. Senior advocate Bishwajit Bhattacharyya brought the matter involving Akshat Tripathi before the Supreme Court. Tripathi, a second-year student at Gautam Buddh University, was served a notice by the Executive Magistrate on September 4. The notice alleged that he had circulated anti-government information and encouraged students to attend the CJP protest at Jantar Mantar. The notice was withdrawn the very next day, the Court was informed. The bench referred to its September 1 decision, when it invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to quash cases against students arising from the CJP protests. The order covered FIRs registered between July 20 and 25 in states and Union Territories and directed that they should neither be investigated nor pursued, treating them as closed for all purposes. The Court had additionally prohibited any fresh action against students in connection with the protests. The development triggered a strong reaction from the Court. It asked, “How could the magistrate issue the notice? Our order was clear that no coercive action can be taken against any student across the country. How dare a magistrate do that?" Chief Justice of India Surya Kant also said the Court would seek an explanation from the Gautam Buddh Nagar district and executive magistrates over the notice. Bhattacharyya described the episode as an "experiment with students of India" and urged the Court to ensure that similar incidents do not recur. The Chief Justice agreed with his concern and remarked, "We are surprised how an executive magistrate or a district magistrate can issue a notice when our September 1 order was clear that no action can be taken against our youth for participating in the protest," The Court’s response has placed renewed attention on compliance with its September 1 directions by local authorities.