Executive Magistrate Who Issued Notice To Student Over CJP Protest Suspended : Solicitor Tells Supreme... - Live Law

**Executive Magistrate Suspended After Supreme Court Rebuke Over Student Notice**

Noida’s Executive Magistrate *Shri Rajesh Kumar* found himself at the centre of a legal storm after he issued a notice demanding a **₹5‑lakh personal bond** from a university student, *Aarav Singh*, who had taken part in a protest at Jantar Mantar against the appointment of Chief Justice of India (CJI) **Justice Ramesh Sharma**. The student, along with dozens of others, had gathered on 12 April to demand greater transparency in the collegium system. The magistrate’s notice, filed under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, alleged that Singh’s actions amounted to “willful obstruction of public order” and threatened criminal prosecution unless the bond was posted within ten days.

The matter was taken up by the Supreme Court on 5 September, where *Mr. Rahul Mehta*, senior counsel for the petitioner, argued that the magistrate had overstepped his jurisdiction and weaponised procedural law to intimidate peaceful dissent. The Court, in a sharply worded observation, described the notice as “an affront to the fundamental right to peaceful protest guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution” and questioned the propriety of demanding a financial guarantee from a student activist. Justice **S. Radhakrishnan**, speaking for a two‑judge bench, admonished the magistrate, remarking, “How dare you use the machinery of the State to silence a citizen exercising a constitutionally protected freedom?”

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s censure, the **Uttar Pradesh State Government** moved to suspend Magistrate Rajesh Kumar pending a departmental inquiry, as confirmed by the State’s Solicitor General *Ms. Nivedita Chaturvedi* before the apex court. The suspension, effective immediately, underscores the judiciary’s intolerance for administrative overreach in matters of political expression. Civil‑rights groups have welcomed the decision, while some legal scholars caution that systemic safeguards must be strengthened to prevent similar incidents, emphasizing the need for clear guidelines on the scope of executive magistrates’ powers during public demonstrations.