Delhi HC rejects AISA chief Neha Bora’s plea against peace bond notice

• Delhi High Court rejects AISA president Neha Bora’s plea against a Rs 10,000 peace bond notice but directs the magistrate to provide her with the material relied upon.

• Bora challenges preventive proceedings initiated after her detention ahead of the CJP’s ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march on 16 October.

• Her lawyer questions the legal basis for the notice, while the Centre argues that police records support apprehensions of a breach of peace.

The Delhi High Court on Friday, 23 October rejected a plea by All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora challenging a police notice asking her to execute a peace bond, following her preventive detention ahead of a march against chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the writ petition at this stage but directed the special executive magistrate (SEM) to provide Bora with all the material relied upon in the proceedings against her. A detailed copy of the judgment is awaited.

Bora had approached the high court challenging a notice issued on 17 October under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), asking her to appear before the SEM on 19 October and show cause why she should not furnish a personal bond of Rs 10,000, with one surety, to maintain peace during the inquiry.

The case stems from Bora’s detention on 16 October while she was on her way to join the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march in Delhi’s Connaught Place. She was released the following day.

The march was called amid protests against alleged irregularities in the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and demands for Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation.

In her petition settled by lawyer Abhik Chimni, Bora argued that the police notice was vague, factually incorrect and unsupported by material establishing a likelihood of breach of peace. She contended that the proceedings amounted to an attempt to use preventive powers to suppress peaceful dissent and violated her fundamental rights to freedom of speech and assembly.

The notice cited allegations of sloganeering at Mandi House on 16 October, repeated protest-related activity around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and instigating people to participate in an unauthorised demonstration at Central Park in Connaught Place.

Bora’s counsel disputed the allegations, arguing that she had called for a peaceful gathering at Mandi House and had been detained shortly after arriving there. He maintained that she was not responsible for the separate CJP call to unfurl the national flag at Central Park.

During Thursday’s hearing, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Bora, questioned whether the authorities had established any credible basis for apprehending a breach of peace. He argued that the notice had been issued mechanically, without adequate application of mind by the SEM, and that the statutory process required an inquiry into the material before a bond could be imposed.

Sankaranarayanan also argued that citizens did not need prior permission merely to hoist the national flag and that demanding a change of government was legitimate in a democracy. “There is nothing wrong in (demanding a) regime change in a democracy, I’m sorry,” he submitted.

The court had questioned the authorities on whether they had predetermined the need for a bond before completing the inquiry and whether the magistrate had independently assessed the information supplied by the police.

The Centre, represented by additional solicitor-general Chetan Sharma, opposed Bora’s challenge, arguing that the preventive proceedings were legally justified. Sharma cited what he described as repeated violations by Bora and referred to police records, general diary entries and previous cases to support the authorities’ apprehension of a breach of peace.

The government also argued that Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS could be invoked together in proceedings intended to prevent a breach of peace.

Section 126 empowers an executive magistrate to require a person to show cause why they should not execute a bond for keeping the peace when there is credible information that they may breach public tranquillity or commit an act likely to cause a disturbance. Sections 130 and 135 prescribe related procedural requirements for issuing notices and conducting inquiries.

The high court’s direction to provide Bora with the material relied upon in the proceedings is therefore a significant aspect of Friday’s order, even as it rejected her immediate challenge to the notice. The detailed judgment is expected to clarify the basis for the court’s decision and the scope of the directions issued to the SEM.