The Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, has taken a very stern view regarding a notice issued to a student of Gautam Buddha University in Greater Noida. During a hearing on Wednesday related to a protest at Jantar Mantar in Delhi, the apex court expressed its deep displeasure and questioned how a magistrate could dare to issue such a notice despite clear judicial directions. The bench, which also included Justice Bagchi, indicated that it would seek a formal explanation from the concerned magistrate in Greater Noida regarding this action.
The Core of the Controversy
The matter pertains to a student from Gautam Buddha University (GBU) who was served a notice by the Office of the Third Executive Magistrate of the Greater Noida Commissionerate. The notice required the student to furnish a personal bond of 5 lakh rupees. This action was initiated following the student's participation in a protest organized under the leadership of the CJP at Jantar Mantar. The Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, questioned the authority of the Executive Magistrate to issue such a notice, especially when the Supreme Court had already issued a directive stating that no punitive action should be taken against the students involved.
Arguments Presented in Court
Advocate Vishwajit Bhattacharya brought this matter to the attention of the 3 judge bench headed by CJI Surya Kant. He argued that students were being used as subjects for experiments and that the notice, although reportedly withdrawn later, was a direct violation of the apex court's orders. The lawyer informed the bench that a second-year student was issued this notice by the former Magistrate of Greater Noida based on information provided by the Noida Police. He emphasized that this occurred despite the court's order dated 1 September, which explicitly protected students from such measures. Bhattacharya stated that while media reports suggested the notice had been withdrawn, the act itself appeared to be a prima facie case of contempt of court, while he further asserted that authorities in Noida and Uttar Pradesh shouldn't be allowed to create an atmosphere of fear among students.
CJI Surya Kant's Reaction
Responding to the lawyer's submissions, CJI Surya Kant agreed with the concerns raised. He stated that there is no question of taking action against the youth and reminded the court of the clear orders passed previously. The Chief Justice expressed surprise at how a magistrate could issue such a notice when the court had already mandated that no punitive action be taken against any student. He described the court's previous order as absolutely clear and unambiguous. Consequently, the CJI directed the lawyer to place all relevant facts on record, stating that the court would seek an explanation from the magistrate to allow them to present their side of the story.
Status of the Notice
During the proceedings, Justice Bagchi inquired whether there was any official confirmation regarding the withdrawal of the notice, while the lawyer mentioned that while press reports indicated the notice had been taken back, he had not received any formal notification to that effect. He reiterated that the court's decision on 1 September was public knowledge, and the issuance of the notice despite that knowledge raised serious questions about judicial compliance. The CJI concluded that the court would indeed seek a response on the matter.
Details of the 5 Lakh Rupee Bond
The student involved, Akshat Tripathi, was accused by the police of encouraging other students to join a protest led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) at Jantar Mantar. The notice issued to him was a peace bond notice, which required a personal security of 5 lakh rupees. While the police later claimed that the notice had been withdrawn, the student denied the allegations of misconduct. Akshat Tripathi maintained that he had participated in the protest peacefully and wasn't attending university classes at that time. A peace bond notice is technically a precautionary measure rather than a conviction, intended to ensure that an individual maintains peace and refrains from activities that might disturb law and order, while however, the scale of the bond and the context of the protest led to the current legal scrutiny.