The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its order on a petition filed by All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora challenging a Delhi Police notice requiring her to furnish a bond for maintaining peace. Justice Subramonium Prasad will pronounce the order on October 23 at 6 PM.
The Court heard arguments for nearly three hours from senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Bora, and Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Delhi Police.
Bora has sought cancellation of the notice issued under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), along with directions restraining the police from taking coercive action against her.
Police Defend Notice, Question Maintainability of Petition
During the hearing, the Delhi Police opposed Bora’s challenge and questioned the maintainability of her petition.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma submitted that the special executive magistrate had sufficient material before him when issuing the notice and had duly applied his mind to the matter.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan disputed this contention, arguing that the magistrate had issued the notice mechanically without independently examining the allegations.
He also challenged the allegation that Bora had hoisted the national flag without permission, submitting that citizens did not require permission to hoist the national flag.
Notice Issued Following October 16 Detention
The dispute arose after Bora was taken into preventive detention on October 16 while travelling to participate in the Cockroach Janta Party’s “Lehra Do Tiranga” march. She was released the following day.
On October 17, the police issued a notice directing her to appear before the special executive magistrate on October 19 and explain why she should not be required to furnish a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during the inquiry.
Section 126 of the BNSS empowers a special executive magistrate to seek a peace bond upon receiving credible information that a person is likely to breach the peace, disturb public tranquillity or commit an act that could cause such a disturbance.
The proceedings against Bora refer to allegations that she raised slogans at Mandi House on October 16, repeatedly participated in protests around Jantar Mantar despite restrictions under Section 163 of the BNSS, and encouraged public participation in a demonstration at Connaught Place.
Bora Alleges Misuse of Preventive Powers
In her petition, settled by advocate Abhik Chimni, Bora contended that the notice was based on inaccurate allegations and failed to disclose any specific material indicating that she was likely to disturb public peace.
She argued that the notice did not specify the period, occasion or event during which a breach of peace was anticipated.
The petition further alleged that the authorities had used preventive proceedings to restrict peaceful dissent, violating her constitutional rights under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 21.
Bora, who has been actively involved in protests concerning alleged irregularities in the Election Commission’s special intensive revision of electoral rolls, also disputed the police allegation that she had encouraged participation in a demonstration at Central Park, Connaught Place, on October 16.
According to her petition, she had instead called for a peaceful gathering at Mandi House at 5 PM that day and was subsequently detained from that location.
The petition also questioned the reliance on prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, arguing that the notice failed to identify any particular order or incident involving a violation.
It maintained that the only prohibitory order placed on record, dated August 23, 2026, did not cover Mandi House and expressly exempted Jantar Mantar Road.
The High Court will now decide Bora’s challenge to the notice after considering her objections to the preventive proceedings and the Delhi Police’s defence of the magistrate’s action.
