'How Dare Magistrate Issue Notice To Student Despite Our Order?' : Supreme Court Slams Greater Noida... - Live Law

**Supreme Court Rebukes Greater Noida Magistrate Over Notice to Student Protester**

New Delhi – In a sharply worded admonishment, the Supreme Court of India chastised a Greater Noida magistrate for issuing a legal notice to a university student who had taken part in the nationwide protests against the NEET‑UG examination. Chief Justice of India D. Y. Chandrachud, addressing the bench on 9 September 2026, asked, “How dare a magistrate issue a notice despite our order?” and declared the notice “null and void” as it contravened a standing Supreme Court direction that no coercive action be taken against peaceful demonstrators. The Court instructed the magistrate to withdraw the notice immediately and to refrain from any further action against the student.

The controversy stems from a wave of demonstrations that began in early 2026, when students across several states rallied against the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for Under‑graduates (NEET‑UG), arguing that the exam unfairly disadvantages candidates from rural and economically weaker backgrounds. On 4 September, the Supreme Court had issued a protective order stating that any student participating in a **peaceful** protest could not be penalised, and that law‑enforcement agencies must respect the right to peaceful assembly. Despite this, the Greater Noida magistrate—identified as Magistrate S. K. Singh—sent a formal notice to 19‑year‑old Arjun Sharma, a second‑year engineering student, accusing him of violating a local “public order” directive and demanding a personal appearance before the court.

Legal experts and civil‑society groups have welcomed the apex court’s swift intervention, viewing it as a reaffirmation of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. The Bar Council of India issued a statement urging lower courts to align their actions with Supreme Court pronouncements, while the All‑India Students Association called for a broader review of administrative overreach during student movements. The incident underscores the tension between regional law‑enforcement authorities and the judiciary’s role in safeguarding democratic dissent, and it may prompt the Supreme Court to issue clearer procedural guidelines to prevent similar breaches in the future.