The Supreme Court of India on 9 September 2026 questioned the issuance of a notice by the Greater Noida Executive Magistrate to a student from Gautam Buddha University, despite a prior Supreme Court order barring any coercive action against students involved in Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) protests. The notice, which required the student to furnish a personal bond of ₹5 lakh, was reportedly withdrawn after media coverage and legal intervention.According to Live Law, the Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant expressed strong disapproval, asking how the Executive Magistrate could issue such a notice when the court had already quashed FIRs related to the protests and explicitly barred further action against students. The notice was issued under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, based on a police report alleging the student was instigating others to join the protest.As reported by The Indian Express, the student, Akshat Tripathi, denied the allegations, stating he had not been present at the university during the period in question due to holidays and online classes. The Supreme Court reiterated that its order was clear and that no penal action should be taken against students, with Chief Justice Surya Kant stating, “No penal action against any student; it was a very clear-cut order. The language is very plain. Even a layman can understand.”As highlighted by Deccan Herald, the notice was based on police claims that Tripathi was spreading anti-government messages and encouraging participation in the CJP protest. The Supreme Court was informed that the notice had been withdrawn, but the bench maintained that withdrawal did not negate the act of contempt, as the original order had been violated.Court observations included a directive to seek an explanation from the Greater Noida authority regarding the issuance of the notice. The bench emphasised that the Supreme Court’s prohibition on coercive action was not limited to Delhi but extended to all states and union territories where CJP protests occurred.“How could a Magistrate dare to issue notice? We made clear no coercive action against any student! No Magistrate could violate that order,” Chief Justice Surya Kant stated.'Who is BCI to Interfere?': Supreme Court on BCI's Notice Against NALSAR ProtestSupreme Court Declines To Halt CJP September 5 ProtestSenior Advocate Bishwajit Bhattacharyya, who brought the matter to the court’s attention, argued that the magistrate’s action amounted to contempt and could create a “fear psychosis” among students. Legal submissions stressed that contempt cannot be purged simply by withdrawing the notice, as the violation of the Supreme Court’s order had already occurred.The sequence of events, as coverage revealed, began with a police report alleging that Tripathi was instigating students, followed by the magistrate’s notice, and culminated in the Supreme Court’s intervention after the matter was mentioned in open court.Further clarification was provided during the hearing when the Solicitor General stated that the show-cause notice was issued by the Greater Noida Executive Magistrate, not the Noida District Magistrate, and that the Allahabad High Court’s related order would be challenged separately.CJP and the Changing Information Landscape of Student ProtestNote: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.