Back
Supreme Court Seeks Response From UP Govt Over Alleged on 's Suspension
The is set to hear a crucial application on Thursday wherein a law student has accused the Uttar Pradesh government of misleading the apex court regarding the disciplinary action taken against an who issued a controversial notice to him. The student, Akasht Tripathi, a second-year law student at Gautam Buddha University, contends that the state falsely represented that the magistrate had been suspended, while in reality only a was placed under suspension. The matter goes to the heart of and the obligation of state governments to make accurate submissions before the highest court.
A Notice in Defiance of Supreme Court’s Order
The controversy began with a notice dated , issued by the –Third, Greater Noida, under . The notice called upon Tripathi to why he should not be bound over with a of ₹5,00,000 and two of the like amount. The allegation was that he had instigated fellow students to join a proposed dharna organised by the over the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak controversy.
This notice came just three days after the Supreme Court, on , had passed a landmark order quashing cases against students who had participated in peaceful protests connected with the NEET paper leak. In that order, the court had invoked its powers under and directed that no fresh FIR or proceeding be initiated anywhere in the country in connection with such protests, save for a narrow exception carved out for 2,873 named individuals with antecedents of grave offences involving bodily harm or destruction of property.
When the notice was brought to the attention of the bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant on , the CJI reacted sharply, asking, “How did the magistrate dare to issue a notice when we have already annulled the proceedings?” The court’s disapproval was palpable, and it sought an explanation from the state.
The State’s Assurance and the Subsequent Revelations
In response, the Uttar Pradesh government, through , assured the bench that action had been taken against the concerned official. The court, relying on this representation, did not immediately pass any contempt orders. However, a subsequent report published by The Indian Express on , revealed a different picture. The report stated that Shiva Pandey—whose report was said to have formed the basis for the notice—had been suspended by the . Crucially, the report also recorded that the DGP Headquarters had clarified that the ) who had actually issued the impugned notice had not been suspended.
This discrepancy forms the core of Tripathi’s latest application, filed through his counsel . The application asserts that “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.”
Allegations of and Potential Contempt
The application raises serious questions about the conduct of the state government. If the Supreme Court finds that the state indeed made a false statement, it could amount to or at least a serious breach of the owed to the court. The bench had specifically asked for action against the magistrate who issued the notice, yet the state appears to have suspended a junior police officer instead, while leaving the actual decision-maker untouched.
Tripathi’s plea emphasises that the notice itself was issued in “teeth of the letter and spirit” of the Supreme Court’s September 1 order. The petition argues that the notice is founded on vague, unsubstantiated and allegations of “spreading anti-government misleading talks” and “instigating” students to join a peaceful dharna. It contends that such —demanding a of ₹5,00,000—offends fundamental rights under .
Legal Framework: Section 130 BNSS and
Section 130 BNSS empowers an to call upon a person to why they should not be required to execute a bond for keeping the peace or for good behaviour, if there is information that such person is likely to commit a or disturb the . The provision is preventive in nature and is meant to be used sparingly, based on credible and specific material. In the present case, the notice allegedly did not disclose any specific overt act, date, time, statement or instance of imminent violence.
The Supreme Court’s September 1 order had effectively put all such proceedings on hold for students involved in the NEET protests, except for those with . The issuance of the notice three days later suggests either a disregard for the court’s directions or a failure of communication within the state machinery. Either way, it undermines the authority of the apex court.
Implications for and Government Accountability
This case has significant implications beyond the individual student. It tests whether state governments can, with impunity, misrepresent facts to the Supreme Court and avoid taking action against officers who flout judicial orders. The court’s response will send a strong message about the sanctity of its directions and the importance of accurate submissions.
For the legal community, the case also highlights the potential misuse of preventive provisions like Section 130 BNSS to stifle peaceful protest and dissent. The requirement of a heavy —₹5,00,000 for a second-year law student—is disproportionate and appears designed to deter participation in lawful demonstrations.
The application also raises questions about the role of the Solicitor General, who conveyed the state’s representation to the court. While the SG is an officer of the court, he relies on instructions from the state. If those instructions turn out to be false, it erodes the trust between the court and the government.
What’s Next?
The matter is listed for hearing on Thursday. The bench is likely to seek a clear explanation from the Uttar Pradesh government and may direct the production of the relevant files to ascertain who ordered the suspension and why the was spared. The court could also consider initiating if it finds that the state deliberately misled it.
For Akasht Tripathi, the outcome will determine whether he is free from the threat of the oppressive notice. For the larger student community and civil liberties, it will reaffirm that the Supreme Court’s orders protecting peaceful protesters cannot be circumvented by local officials.
The legal profession will be watching closely as the apex court takes up this test of its own authority and the accountability of state governments under the .
