NEET-UG protests: Supreme Court challenges UP Magistrate’s notice to student despite bar

The Supreme Court on September 1 quashed the FIR registered against the protesters, who were overwhelmingly students, involved in the agitation against the leak of the NEET-UG question paper. File | Photo credit: The Hindu

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Wednesday (September 9, 2026) questioned the issuance of a show-cause notice by the Executive Magistrate of the Greater Noida Commissionerate to a student of Gautama Buddha University (GBU) in connection with the NEET-UG protests at Jantar Mantar, despite the Supreme Court’s clear order against coercion.

A social media post by the DCP, Greater Noida said that the show-cause notice has already been withdrawn and the officials involved are facing disciplinary action. The statement also said that District Magistrate Gautam Buddha Nagar had no role to play in the matter.

The court was hearing oral mention on a petition by student Akshat Tripathi, represented by advocate Subhash Chandran, challenging the show-cause notice issued on September 4 under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in connection with preventive proceedings.

The petitioner was called upon to show cause why he should not be bound under Section 126/135 BNSS to furnish a personal bond of ₹5 lakh with two sureties in like amount for allegedly “inciting” fellow students of his university to join the proposed dharna of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP).

Speaking on behalf of Mr. Tripathi, senior advocate Biswajit Bhattacharya said the issuance of the notice was a “prima facie contempt” of the Supreme Court’s September 1 order.

On September 1, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR registered against the protesters, who were overwhelmingly students, involved in the agitation against the leak of the NEET-UG question paper. It also banned the registration of new FIRs against students and youth in connection with the CJP protests.

“How dare the judge issue a notice when we have already quashed (the FIR) and ordered that no criminal action be taken against any student? It was a clear order. The language was very clear. Every layman could understand the order,” Chief Justice Kant observed.

The chairman verbally assured that the court would ask for an explanation for issuing the summons.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi pointed out that the notification was withdrawn the day after it was issued.

But Mr. Bhattacharya argued that the contempt of the apex court could not be removed by withdrawing the notification.

“We will ask him (the judge) to explain… Let him explain,” Chief Justice Kant said.

Published – 9 September 2026 12:00 PM IST