Executive Magistrate Suspended Over Rs 5 Lakh Bond Notice to Student in CJP Protest Case, Centre Tells SC
The Greater Noida Executive Magistrate who issued a show-cause notice asking a student to furnish a personal bond of Rs 5 lakh over his alleged involvement in campaigning for a Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) protest has been suspended, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court on Thursday, September 10.
The submission came during the hearing of a writ petition filed by Akshat Tripathi, a student at Gautam Buddh University, challenging the notice issued under provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Senior Advocate P V Dinesh, appearing for Tripathi, mentioned the plea before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant while the court was hearing other matters related to the July student protests. He told the court that “a strong message must go to the officers”, pointing out that the notice accused Tripathi of making “anti-government misleading talks” among students.
The Chief Justice said he had already taken a strong view of the matter when it was mentioned before him a day earlier and had sought a response from the state. Mehta then informed the bench that the officer concerned had been suspended.
According to Tripathi’s petition, the notice invoked Sections 126 and 135 of the BNSS, under which an executive magistrate can seek security from a person considered likely to breach the peace and conduct an inquiry into the allegations.
The notice sought a personal bond of Rs 5 lakh from Tripathi along with two sureties of the same amount for six months.
The petition said the notice was based on a report by a sub-inspector at Eco First police station alleging that Tripathi had encouraged students to join a proposed CJP dharna, creating tension that could lead to a breach of peace.
Tripathi has contended that the notice did not identify any specific date, statement or act of actual or imminent violence linked to him. He also alleged that supporting material was not provided to him.
The petition further challenged the short notice period. Dated September 4, the notice required Tripathi to appear on September 5, leaving him little time to consult a lawyer or arrange the required sureties.
It also argued that the proceedings violated the Supreme Court’s September 1 order quashing FIRs linked to the student protests and barring further coercive action against students.
Tripathi’s plea said encouraging students to participate in a peaceful dharna was protected by the constitutional rights to free speech and peaceful assembly and that forcing him to execute the bond infringed his personal liberty.
