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

A social media post by the DCP, Greater Noida, said the show-cause notice had already been withdrawn, and the officials involved were facing disciplinary action.

The statement also said the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar, had no role whatsoever in the issue.

The court was hearing an oral mentioning of a petition filed 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.

NEET-UG protests: After Supreme Court quashes FIRs, petitioner says police, government yet to explain their conduct The petitioner has been called upon to show cause why he should not be bound down under Sections 126/135 of the BNSS by executing a personal bond of ₹5 lakh, with two sureties of a like amount, for allegedly “instigating” fellow students of his university to join a proposed dharna of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP).

Making an oral mentioning on behalf of Mr.

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

On September 1, the Supreme Court had quashed FIRs registered against protestors, who were overwhelmingly students, involved in the agitation against the NEET-UG question paper leaks.

It had also barred the registration of fresh FIRs against students and youths in connection with the CJP protests.

Gujarat Govt orders withdrawal of cases against participants of NEET paper leak protests “How did the Magistrate dare to issue notice when we have already annulled [FIRs] and directed that no penal action would be taken against any student?

It was a clear-cut order.

The language was very plain.

Any layperson could understand the order,” Chief Justice Kant observed.

The Chief Justice orally assured that the court would seek an explanation for the issuance of the notice.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi pointed out that the notice had been withdrawn the next day of its issuance.

But Mr.

Bhattacharya argued that the contempt of an apex court could not be purged by withdrawing the notice.

“We will ask for his (Magistrate) explanation...

Let him explain,” Chief Justice Kant said.