Supreme Court Directs No Punitive Action Against Law Student After Rs. 5 Lakh BNSS Notice Withdrawn
The Supreme Court on Monday directed that no punitive action be taken against law student Akshat Tripathi on the basis of a ₹5 lakh bond notice issued by the Greater Noida Executive Magistrate in connection with a proposed student protest. The direction came after the Uttar Pradesh Government informed the Court that the notice issued against Tripathi had been withdrawn. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana recorded the withdrawal and annulled any action that may have been taken pursuant to the notice.
The controversy arose from a notice dated September 4, 2026, issued by the Executive Magistrate-III, Greater Noida, under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The proceedings were initiated with reference to Sections 126 and 135 BNSS, following a police report alleging that Tripathi was encouraging fellow university students to participate in a proposed demonstration organised by the Cockroach Janta Party. The authorities alleged that his activities could create tension and lead to a breach of peace. Tripathi was asked to show cause why he should not be required to execute a personal bond of ₹5 lakh along with two sureties of the same amount.
Tripathi challenged the notice before the Supreme Court, contending that the preventive proceedings were inconsistent with the Court’s earlier directions concerning students who participated in the protests. His petition also questioned the basis for demanding such a substantial bond and argued that the notice did not identify any specific act, statement, date or incident demonstrating an imminent threat to public order. The plea raised issues concerning freedom of speech and peaceful assembly under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) as well as the protection of personal liberty under Article 21.
The matter had earlier drawn strong observations from the Supreme Court after the notice came to its attention. The Bench had questioned how an Executive Magistrate could initiate such proceedings when the Court had already directed that no coercive action be taken against students in connection with the protests. The Court had indicated that an explanation would be sought from the concerned authority. The subsequent proceedings also generated controversy over what disciplinary action had actually been taken against the officials involved in issuing and serving the notice.
With the Uttar Pradesh authorities now confirming withdrawal of the notice, the Supreme Court on Monday made it clear that any action previously taken pursuant to the September 4 notice would stand annulled and that no punitive action of any nature could be taken against Tripathi on its basis. The order is significant in the context of the use of preventive powers under the BNSS, particularly where such powers intersect with constitutionally protected freedoms. However, the Court’s latest direction was made in the factual context of Tripathi’s case and should not be read as a blanket ruling invalidating preventive proceedings under Sections 126, 130 or 135 BNSS.
