The Supreme Court disposed of the plea by a second-year student protester against the notice by an Executive Magistrate in Greater Noida, after the State of UP submitted that the notice was withdrawn by the concerned authorities.

The Court said that any past actions taken pursuant to the notice stand annulled and directed that no coercive or penal action of any nature shall be taken against the petitioner

Previously, the Court expressed sharp surprise after a matter was mentioned. While counsel argued that issuing the notice constituted prima facie contempt of court despite its reported withdrawal, the Bench directed the counsel to place the relevant facts on record and stated it would seek a formal explanation from the District Magistrate.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana ordered, "The instant petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 4th September 2026 issued under Section 133 BNSS by the Executive Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar in Case No. 1387 of 2026, whereby the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be bound under Section 126 and 135 BNSS, etc. At the outset, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and she states that the impugned notice dated 4th September 2026 already stands withdrawn. That being so, it is directed that action, if any, taken in the past pursuant to the said notice dated 4th September 2026 stands annulled, and consequently no coercive/penal action of any nature will be taken against the petitioner."


ASG Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the State

Bhati submitted, "It has already been withdrawn; you may record it."

On September 1, the Court, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, had quashed multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered in connection with the nationwide student and youth protests held between July 20, 2026, and July 25, 2026.

It was the case of the Petitioner that this action directly contravened the Court’s order delivered on September 1st, which had protected students across India from penal action. 

Saurav Das, co-convener of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), also appeared in person before the Supreme Court and submitted the withdrawal of the proposed September 5 protest march, citing the Central Government’s positive assurances and the court’s judicial oversight.

The Supreme Court had also dismissed an application seeking reconstitution of the High-Powered Enquiry Committee probing allegations of sexual assault, online harassment, and police misconduct during the NEET paper leak protests, terming the request premature.

The Court had constituted a high-powered judicial committee to comprehensively investigate grievances, address allegations of sexual assault and online harassment against protesters, and evaluate police conduct during the NEET paper leak protests.

Cause Title: Akshat Tripathi v. State of U.P. & Ors. [W.P.(Crl.) No. 368/2026]

Tags: