Delhi High Court rejects plea by Neha Bora against notice to sign bond and "maintain peace"

The Delhi High Court on Saturday dismissed a plea filed by All India Students Association (AISA) president Neha Bora challenging a notice issued the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) directing Bora to execute a personal bond of ₹10,000 and maintain peace.

Justice Subramonium Prasad passed the order.

"Writ petition is rejected. However, there are certain directions give for the magistrate to take care of. All the material to be furnished to her," the Court said.

The Court added that the magistrate [SEM] will also consider the import of Section 135 BNSS.

“Whether 135 would warrant a production of the bond at the very first instance, or it's only during the course of the inquiries, and further incident take place, which gives the danger or not. These are matters the magistrate will take into account,” the court said.

The notice under challenge was issued by the Delhi Police to Bora on October 18, directing them to appear before the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) on October 19.

It directed Bora to execute a personal bond of ₹10,000 with a surety to “maintain peace during the period of inquiry” against them.

According to Bora’s plea, the notice dated October 17 was issued by the SEM under Sections 126 and 130, read with Section 135(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), citing apprehensions of breach of public peace and tranquillity.

Bora was detained on October 16 while attending a gathering at Mandi House.

Bora alleged that they were taken to an undisclosed location and subsequently to RK Puram police station, where they were held overnight before being released at 6 AM the following day. They received the SEM notice on October 18.

The notice cited allegations of sloganeering at Mandi House, repeated protests around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and allegedly instigating people to participate in a protest at Connaught Place.

However, according to Bora's plea, the notice does not disclose any material establishing a likelihood of breach of peace or identify a specific event or period during which such a breach is apprehended.

The petition also disputed the allegation concerning the Connaught Place protest. Bora argued that their call was for a peaceful gathering at Mandi House at 5 pm on October 16, where they were subsequently detained.

Bora alleged that the proceedings amount to an attempt to curb peaceful dissent and violate their fundamental rights to freedom of speech, assembly and personal liberty.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Bora, submitted that all calls made by them were for peaceful protests.

"The facts are that over a period of time certain protests have arisen in the country as it the want against what the government does. As far as my client is concerned there has been no exhortation to violence it has been entirely peaceful. She has been asking for reforms. Over time, she has put out tweets and exhorted people to join," it was submitted.

Sankaranarayanan referred to the press conference held by Bora on October 15 in response to the de-notification of Jantar Mantar as a protest site.

He sought to distinguish the protest that happened at Connaught Place from the one which Bora had called for at Mandi House.

Sankaranarayanan added that there is nothing wrong in making a call for a regime change in a democracy.

He also highlighted how the special executive magistrate issuing the notice is also a police officer.

"It is admitted that there was a direction by senior officers to initiate the procedure under Section 126. It is relevant because the SEM here is also an ACP," it was pointed out.

He further flagged errors in the notice and maintained that no permission is required to hoist the national flag.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, appearing for Delhi Police, rebutted Bora's arguments.

The ASG said that Section 126 and 130 of the BNSS have to be read together.

"If there is a likelihood that somebody may commit breach of peace, Section 126 BNSS kicks in with Section 130 BNSS. They can't be disjoined. Such technical splitting will take away the essence of public tranquillity and breach of peace," the ASG contended.

ASG Sharma maintained that the notice was based on likelihood of breach of peace and cannot be assailed on the ground of technicality.

"Don't leave it to a technicality... All mayhem may have broken loose in the capital of the city. Because this is preventive in nature so that law would land its weight to the way parliament envisaged it to be," the ASG argued.

Regarding Bora's arguments that the notice was factually incorrect since she was had not given any call for protest at Connaught Place but only at Mandi House, the ASG said,

"Their argument that their call was only for Mandi House and not CP and that no 163 BNSS was in force is false. There was 163 BNSS. Police was outnumbered, she ran. She dodges. She was stopped, she did not stop. She ran towards CP."

Besides Sankaranarayanan, advocates Abhik Chimni, Moksha Sharma, Ayan Dasgupta Samarendra, Pranjal Abrol and Gurupal Singh also appeared for Bora.

ASG Chetan Sharma and CGSC Ashish Dixit represented the Delhi Police.