Neha Bora’s peace bond challenge rejected as Delhi High Court directs magistrate to follow procedural safeguards (Img: IANS)
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea filed by All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora challenging a notice issued by a Special Executive Magistrate requiring her to show cause in proceedings concerning the execution of a peace bond following protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
Bora had approached the High Court seeking to quash the notice dated October 17, issued under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), read with Section 135(3). The proceedings arose after her detention during the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protest on October 16.
The notice proposed requiring her to furnish a personal bond of ₹10,000, along with one surety, to maintain peace during the pendency of an inquiry.
Bora contended that the police had incorrectly linked her to a protest call at Central Park in Connaught Place, asserting that she had organised a separate gathering at Mandi House.
According to her plea, she had called for a peaceful assembly at Mandi House to unfurl the national flag as part of the demonstrations against the Chief Election Commissioner. She alleged that she was detained at around 5.30 pm on October 16, taken to an undisclosed location and subsequently moved to R.K. Puram Police Station, where she remained in custody overnight before being released the following morning.
The impugned notice cited allegations of sloganeering at Mandi House, repeated protest-related activities around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and purportedly instigating people to participate in an unauthorised demonstration at Connaught Place.
Challenging the notice, Bora argued that it failed to disclose material establishing a likelihood of breach of peace, a prerequisite for initiating preventive proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS.
Her counsel contended that the notice was issued mechanically, without the requisite application of mind by the Special Executive Magistrate. The petitioner also questioned the reliance on alleged past protest activity to justify preventive action against her.
She further argued that the authorities had not supplied the material forming the basis of the proceedings, impairing her ability to respond effectively to the allegations.
The plea invoked the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and expression, peaceful assembly and personal liberty under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Opposing the petition, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for Delhi Police, submitted that the notice was based on information available to the authorities, including police records, previous cases and the circumstances surrounding the protests.
The police also referred to statements made at a joint press conference attended by Bora, including references to bringing about “regime change”. Bora’s counsel maintained that seeking a change of government through democratic means was not unlawful and that the remarks could not, by themselves, establish grounds for preventive action against her.
During the hearing, the Court questioned the extent to which a Magistrate must independently assess the credibility of information before initiating proceedings that could affect an individual’s liberty. It also examined the procedural safeguards available to a person facing preventive action.
The proceedings stem from a series of demonstrations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission’s functioning, including concerns surrounding the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
Bora’s petition also referred to Supreme Court proceedings concerning restrictions on public assemblies and the invocation of Section 163 of the BNSS in parts of New Delhi. The challenge brought into focus the balance between the police’s preventive powers to maintain public order and the constitutional protection afforded to peaceful protest and dissent.
