How Magistrate Can Dare To Violate That Order: Supreme Court Says After EM Of Gautam Buddh Nagar Issued Notice To Student Protester

The Supreme Court expressed sharp surprise after a matter was mentioned regarding a Magistrate in Greater Noida issuing a notice to a second-year student based on Noida Police inputs.

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.

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.

The Court had ordered the quashing of protest-related FIRs across all States and UTs while directing the Centre to compensate families of students who committed suicide within 3 months.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana said, "How magistrate or district magistrate or executive magistrate can dare to violate that order?...There is no question of taking action against our youth. No question of taking action against these students when we have passed a clear order."

A Counsel mentioned a matter before the Bench arising out of the Jantar Mantar protest. He informed the Court that an Executive Magistrate in Greater Noida, based on inputs from the Noida Police, issued a notice to a second-year student, which the District Magistrate of Gautam Buddh Nagar was set to execute.

He said that this action directly contravened the Court’s historic judgment delivered on September 1st, which had protected students across India from penal action. Although press reports indicated that the authorities later withdrew the notice, Counsel argued that issuing it in the first place constituted prima facie contempt of court and created a climate of fear among students.

He said, "I mean, authorities authorities of Noida and Uttar Pradesh cannot create a contempt and create a fear psychosis among the students of India, on whom lie the future hopes of our country!"

Chief Justice Kant remarked, "We are surprised that how could the magistrate dare to issue a notice, when we have already annulled and we have directed that on all-India basis no action will be taken by..."

The Court asked, "As of now, the notice has been withdrawn, that is what you say. Is there any communication to you that notice has been withdrawn?"

Counsel replied, "No, no. Notice has been withdrawn, the press report says that. That that after it after some time—Lordship, your Lordship's judgment was on 1st of September!"

The Bench expressed sharp surprise at how the executive magistrate dared to issue such a notice despite the Court's explicit, plain-worded order prohibiting all state governments from taking penal action against students.

The Court also observed, "The language is very plain. It's a—a layman can understand that."

While the Court noted that the notice had reportedly been withdrawn, the judges agreed with Counsel that the authorities could not violate a binding order without accountability.

Ultimately, the Court directed Counsel to place the relevant facts and press reports on record.

The Bench assured that it would seek a formal explanation from the District Magistrate regarding the issuance of the notice.

Counsel expressed his gratitude to the Bench as the Court agreed to call for the explanation.

The Court had ordered, "The Court ordered, "(iii) No State/Union Territory shall register any fresh FIR in relation to the incidents of protest between 20th to 25th July 2026, save and accept as permitted hereinbelow...(iv) The Central Government/Delhi Police shall be at liberty to register a fresh FIR against 2,273 individuals as per the description given in paragraph 4 of its application. Such FIR shall be registered without prejudice to the rights of the affected parties to take lawful recourse in accordance with law..."

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.

Recently, the Court refused to pass any immediate orders against a proposed social media-announced protest march by the Cockroach Janta Party ahead of the upcoming BRICS Summit and remarked that maintaining public order falls strictly within the domain of law enforcement agencies.

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.

The Court will also hear an application filed by the lead petitioner seeking the reconstitution of the High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) set up to probe allegations of sexual assault, online harassment, and police misconduct.

Earlier, on August 3, 2026, the Court clarified that the NCT of Delhi and state governments were at liberty to close or withdraw First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against candidates and citizens protesting. The Court also clarified that the word "criminal antecedents" in the previous order is to be read as grave and heinous offences.