Supreme Court condemns magistrate for illegally targeting university student
India's highest judicial body fiercely reprimanded a Greater Noida Executive Magistrate on Wednesday for issuing a coercive show-cause directive to a university student. This administrative action directly violated a previous Supreme Court order that had explicitly prohibited any punitive measures against young people involved in Cockroach Janata Party protests. Student demonstrations have increasingly faced strict administrative crackdowns across Uttar Pradesh, raising significant concerns regarding fundamental democratic rights. Chief Justice of India expressed visible anger, questioning how any local official could openly defy direct instructions meant to protect peaceful demonstrators from state harassment.
📲Follow our WhatsApp Channel for the latest news, breaking updates, and important headlines. Stay connected with us for more updates!
Heavy Financial Bonds Demanded
Local authorities aggressively targeted Akshat Tripathi, a second-year scholar currently studying at Gautam Buddha University. Following a police complaint, the magistrate invoked Sections 126, 135, and 130 of the recently implemented Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita on September 4, 2026. The official document demanded that Tripathi execute an exorbitant personal bond of five lakh rupees, along with two additional sureties matching that exact amount. Law enforcement officials alleged that he was spreading anti-government rhetoric and encouraging his peers to participate in a planned sit-in. Police argued these actions generated localised tension and carried a strong possibility of disrupting public peace.
Retraction Fails To Erase Contempt
Senior Advocate Bishwajit Bhattacharyya highlighted this judicial defiance before a bench that included Justice Joymalya Bagchi. He informed the courtroom that officials quickly withdrew the controversial directive once local press agencies began reporting on the issue. However, the veteran lawyer firmly asserted that simply retracting an illegal document does not excuse the initial act of contempt. He emphasised that regional authorities cannot use such tactics to manufacture fear among young citizens. Taking serious note of these arguments, judges instructed the legal counsel to submit a formal petition containing the original paperwork. They confirmed they will force the responsible authorities to explain their actions officially.
