English
English
English
Neha Bora refuses to sign a Rs 10,000 peace bond and says she will contest the proceedings before the Special Executive Magistrate. (Img: X)
New Delhi: All India Students’ Association (AISA) national president Neha Bora has refused to furnish a peace bond before a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM), a day after the Delhi High Court rejected her petition challenging the Delhi Police notice. Bora said she would contest the proceedings through legal channels, alleging that the preventive action was based on disputed facts and could be used to curb peaceful political dissent.
Addressing a press conference on October 24, Bora maintained that neither she nor AISA would sign the bond. The notice requires her to furnish a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during the inquiry. She argued that the proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice and that authorities should establish a factual basis for anticipating a breach of peace.
The AISA leader also questioned the police account of the October 16 demonstration linked to protests against alleged vote theft and demands for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. She maintained that the protest was peaceful and alleged that the police and security personnel, rather than the demonstrators, were responsible for disrupting the situation.
Bora has challenged the grounds cited in the notice, arguing that it does not establish how her actions created a genuine likelihood of a breach of peace. According to her petition, the police proceedings relied on a prima facie incorrect assertion that she had instigated people to participate in a demonstration at Central Park in Connaught Place on October 16.
She maintained that the gathering she had called for was scheduled to take place at Mandi House at 5 pm and that the police detained her from that location. Her petition argued that the call for a peaceful gathering and the demonstration referred to in the police notice were separate matters.
Bora also disputed allegations relating to sloganeering at Mandi House, repeated demonstrations around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders, and her alleged role in mobilising participants for the Connaught Place protest. She questioned how a peaceful demonstration could, by itself, be treated as a breach of peace.
The AISA president further alleged that the police used force against protesters, including women, and claimed that the lathi-charge contributed to the disruption. These are her allegations and remain subject to the relevant proceedings.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Bora’s petition on Friday, October 23, declining to interfere with the notice at this stage. The court, however, directed the Special Executive Magistrate to provide her with the material being relied upon in the proceedings.
Bora said the order did not amount to a detailed examination of the merits of her allegations and pointed to the direction requiring the SEM court to disclose the relevant material. She said she would appear before the magistrate and contest the case, while maintaining that the inquiry must follow due process and the principles of natural justice.
The court’s direction to provide the material gives Bora an opportunity to examine the basis of the proceedings and respond to the allegations. Her refusal to sign the bond, however, does not by itself establish that the notice is invalid or that the proceedings have ended.
The notice was issued on October 17 under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the provision dealing with security for keeping the peace in certain circumstances. It directed Bora to appear before the SEM on October 19 and explain why she should not execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety for maintaining peace during the inquiry.
Bora had been taken into preventive detention on October 16 while on her way to participate in the Cockroach Janata Party’s ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march at Central Park in Connaught Place. She was released the following day.
Her petition also raised the question of whether citizens require permission to hoist the national flag, in response to allegations concerning the flag being raised without valid permission. The dispute has since expanded beyond the bond requirement to questions about the grounds for preventive action, the handling of protests and the limits of police powers during demonstrations.
The case comes amid protests over alleged electoral irregularities and demands for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation. Bora has maintained that peaceful dissent and political expression are constitutionally protected and alleged that the proceedings infringe upon her rights under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 21 of the Constitution, which concern freedom of speech and expression, the right to assemble peacefully, and the protection of life and personal liberty.
The immediate legal question is whether the preventive proceedings are supported by material indicating a likelihood of a breach of peace and whether the process complies with the law. The High Court has rejected Bora’s plea at this stage while directing the magistrate to provide the material relied upon. Bora has said she will appear before the SEM and challenge the notice through the available legal process.
Her refusal to sign the bond sets up a further legal and political contest over the police action linked to the October 16 protest. The next steps will depend on the proceedings before the Special Executive Magistrate and any further legal challenge pursued by Bora.
