Student Moves Supreme Court Challenging Greater Noida Officer's Notice Over CJP Protest, Terms It Attempt ... - Live Law

**Student Takes Supreme Court to Task Over Greater Noida Magistrate’s Notice in NEET‑UG Protest**

A medical‑college aspirant from Greater Noida filed a petition in the Supreme Court after a senior magistrate of Uttar Pradesh issued a notice demanding the student appear under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code for “disobedience of an order.” The notice was served in connection with the student’s participation in a series of protests that erupted across the state following the Supreme Court’s reaffirmation of the NEET‑UG entrance examination and the subsequent criticism leveled at the Chief Justice of India (CJI). Media reports indicated that the student had joined a peaceful sit‑in outside the district court complex, holding placards that questioned the CJI’s comments on the exam’s conduct.

During the hearing, the bench, which included the CJI, expressed strong disapproval of the magistrate’s action, describing it as an “unwarranted attempt to intimidate a young citizen exercising his constitutional right to protest.” The Court asked the magistrate to justify the legal basis for the notice, noting that no criminal complaint had been lodged against the student and that the protest fell squarely within the ambit of freedom of speech and assembly guaranteed by the Constitution. The bench also emphasized that law‑enforcement officials must not misuse procedural powers to stifle dissent, especially when the alleged conduct does not constitute a cognizable offence.

In a decisive order, the Supreme Court directed the Greater Noida magistrate to withdraw the notice and to refrain from initiating any further proceedings against the petitioner. The Court further directed the state government to ensure that any future action against peaceful demonstrators be anchored in clear statutory authority. The ruling has been hailed by civil‑rights groups as a reaffirmation of democratic freedoms, while the CJI publicly rebuked the magistrate’s “over‑reach,” underscoring the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding the right to protest.