Back
Records Withdrawal of BNSS Notice to Student Akshat Tripathi Over CJP Protest
The on Monday formally recorded the withdrawal of a issued to law student Akshat Tripathi under the , after the Greater Noida Executive Magistrate confirmed that the notice had been revoked. The notice, which required Tripathi to furnish a of ₹5 lakh with two of the same amount, was issued in connection with the proposed “Cockroach Janta Party” (CJP) protest at . The development came as a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana heard Tripathi’s petition challenging the .
The Court’s order effectively annulled any action taken pursuant to the notice and directed that no punitive action be taken against the student. “Ms Bhati has entered appearance. She states that the notice already stands withdrawn. That being so, it is directed that action if any taken in the past pursuant to the notice stands annulled and consequently, no punitive action will be taken against petitioner,” the bench ordered.
Notice Issued Under Preventive Provisions of BNSS
The impugned notice was issued on , by the . It invoked , with the show-cause process initiated under Section 130. These provisions empower an Executive Magistrate to demand security from a person when information is received that the individual is likely to commit a or disturb . The proceedings were based on a police report alleging that Tripathi was circulating “anti-government” statements among university students and encouraging them to join a proposed CJP dharna, which could allegedly lead to tension and a .
Tripathi was directed to appear the very next day, . His petition contended that a single day was plainly insufficient to engage counsel, understand the allegations, and arrange a and two of ₹5 lakh each. The student argued that the notice violated his right to under and denied him a to respond.
's Strong Reaction
When the matter was initially mentioned, the expressed strong displeasure. Chief Justice Surya Kant questioned how an Executive Magistrate could issue such a notice when the Court had expressly directed that no be taken against students over the CJP protests. The Chief Justice indicated that an explanation would be sought from the concerned officer. Justice Joymalya Bagchi also asked whether there was any formal communication confirming that the notice had been withdrawn.
, appearing for the authorities, then informed the Court that the notice had already been withdrawn. Counsel for Tripathi submitted that the petitioner had not received any notification regarding the withdrawal, but the Court proceeded to record the statement and pass orders.
Student's Challenge: Circumventing 's Protection
Tripathi’s petition argued that the were an attempt to achieve indirectly what the authorities could not do directly after the ’s . On , the had invoked its powers under to close FIRs arising from student protests held between and 25 in several states and directed that similar proceedings against students should not continue. The protection was subject to an exception for identified persons with serious criminal antecedents involving bodily harm or destruction of public property. Tripathi maintained that he did not fall within that exception.
The student further contended that the notice did not identify any specific statement, overt act, date, time, or instance of actual or imminent violence attributable to him. He argued that merely encouraging students to participate in a peaceful protest is protected by the freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly under . Requiring a ₹5 lakh bond and two in those circumstances, the plea argued, also affected his under Article 21.
Legal Implications: vs. Court Orders
The case raises significant questions about the scope of under the BNSS and their compatibility with . The ’s earlier order of had created a protective shield for student protesters, barring arising from the CJP-related demonstrations. The issuance of a preventive bond notice against Tripathi, based on conduct connected to the same protest movement, appeared to undermine that protection.
The formal withdrawal of the notice provides immediate relief to Tripathi but leaves unresolved an institutional question: whether lower executive authorities can use preventive provisions to circumvent explicit court orders. The ’s pointed questioning of the Executive Magistrate’s actions signals that such circumvention will not be tolerated. The Court had earlier indicated that an explanation would be sought from the concerned officer, and the dispute over whether any disciplinary action has been taken against the official remains part of the controversy.
Impact on Student Activism and Practices
This development is likely to have a chilling effect on the use of preventive bond proceedings against student activists in the wake of court-ordered protections. Legal experts note that the BNSS provisions, while intended to prevent breaches of peace, must be exercised in conformity with higher judicial directives. The case underscores the importance of in ensuring that preventive measures are not used as a tool to suppress dissent.
The had earlier informed the that action had been taken following the notice. However, Tripathi alleged that the Court was given an incorrect impression that the Executive Magistrate had been suspended, whereas the police later clarified that a Sub-Inspector connected with the report and service of the notice had been suspended. The student’s counsel argued that withdrawal did not necessarily close the question of whether the Court’s earlier directions had been violated, as could create fear among students despite the protection ordered by the .
Conclusion
The ’s recording of the withdrawal brings a measure of closure to Akshat Tripathi’s immediate predicament, but the broader issue of compliance with court orders by executive magistrates remains open. The case serves as a reminder that the BNSS’s preventive provisions must be applied with restraint and in harmony with constitutional guarantees and judicial directives. As student protests continue to be a flashpoint in the legal landscape, the judiciary’s vigilance in protecting against will be closely watched.
The matter is now closed with the Court’s order, but the questions it raised about the proper limits of and the accountability of officials who ignore court directions are likely to resonate in future cases.
