उत्तरी प्रदेश सरकार ने कोर्ट को गुमराह किया, नोटिस देने वाले कार्यकारी मैजिस्ट्रेट को निलंबित नहीं किया: लॉ छात्र ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट में कहा

UP Govt Misled Court, Executive Magistrate Who Issued Notice Over NEET Protest Not Suspended: Law Student Tells Supreme Court

The student had approached Supreme Court saying the notice was in direct contravention to the court's order quashing FIRs registered against those involved in the NEET Paper Leak Protests.

The Supreme Court of India has been informed by the student who was issued notice over his participation in the NEET Protests that the State of Uttar Pradesh misled court when it had informed the CJI Surya Kant led bench regarding action taken against the Executive Magistrate who had issued the impugned notice.

Relying on a news report dated September 11, 2026 published by The Indian Express, which specifically states that Sub-Inspector Shiva Pandey, whose report is stated to have formed the basis of, and who is stated to have forwarded the case for, issuance of the impugned Notice, was suspended by the Uttar Pradesh Police, DGP Headquarters, the student concerned has told court that same report further records that the DGP Headquarters clarified that the ACP (Executive Magistrate), who had actually issued the impugned Notice calling upon him to furnish a personal bond of ₹5,00,000/-, had not been suspended.

"..the State of Uttar Pradesh misled this Hon’ble Court by placing a wrong statement regarding the action taken by the State authorities and that too by using the good office of the learned Solicitor General of India," the application adds.

The Uttar Pradesh government had recently informed the Supreme Court that the Greater Noida Executive Magistrate who issued a notice to a student over his alleged participation in the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP)-led protests over NEET paper leak had been suspended.

The suspension was communicated to the CJI Surya Kant led bench by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta during the hearing of the plea field by the student.

Notice was issued to Akasht Tripathi, a second-year law student at Gautam Buddha University, under provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). He was asked to furnish a personal bond of ₹5 lakh along with two sureties of the same amount. Court had expressed deep concerns over notice being issued to the second year student by Executive Magistrate, Greater Noida despite the court having ordered that all FIRs against students be quashed.

CJI Surya Kant had heard a mentioning made by the students' counsel who stated, "a second year student against whom notice has been issued by Executive Magistrate, Greater Noida over the Jantar Mantar protests. It was later withdrawn..This is an experiment being played with the students of India, and therefore, it would have an all-India implication.".

A miffed CJI had questioned how such a thing could be done and said, "Our order was very clear that no penal action against students. The language was very clear.." Justice Bagchi, also on the bench had asked, "As of now, the notice has been withdrawn, that is what you say. Is there any communication to you that the notice has been withdrawn?" To this the counsel said, "No. The press report says that it has been withdrawn. Your judgment was of September 1..they have committed contempt.."

Accordingly, the bench has sought the District Magistrates' response on the issue. Akasht approached the Supreme Court challenging the Notice dated 04.09.2026 issued under Section 130 BNSS by the Executive Magistrate – Third, Greater Noida, Commissionerate Gautam Buddha Nagar, in Case No. 1387/2026, whereby he had been called upon to show cause as to why he should not be bound down under Sections 126/135 BNSS by executing a personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- with two sureties of like amount, for allegedly “instigating” fellow students of his university to join a proposed dharna of the Cockroach Janta Party.

The plea further stated that the notice issued was in the teeth of the letter and spirit of the order passed by the Supreme Court, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, and authoritatively holding that mere participation in, or exhorting others to participate in, the peaceful protests/agitation connected with the NEET-UG 2026 controversy does not constitute an offence, and had directed that no fresh FIR/proceeding be initiated anywhere in the country in connection with such protests, save the narrow exception carved out for 2,873 named individuals with antecedents of grave and heinous offences involving bodily harm or destruction of property.

"...the impugned Notice, issued three days after the Order dated 01.09.2026, and without disclosing any specific overt act, date, time, statement or instance of imminent violence, is founded on vague, unsubstantiated and mala fide allegations of “spreading anti-government misleading talks” and “instigating” students to join a proposed, and admittedly peaceful, dharna. Such action, being preventive in the harshest sense (a personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- and two sureties of like amount) and directed solely against a student for encouraging peaceful assembly and protected speech, offends Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 21 of the Constitution of India, and further sits in direct conflict with the binding directions of this Hon'ble Court," the petition filed through Advocate Subhash Chandran KR stated.

Case Title: AKASHT TRIPATHI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Powered by Nyaya 247 News