Delhi High Court dismisses AISA president Neha Bora’s plea against peace bond notice

The Delhi High Court has dismissed AISA president Neha Bora’s plea challenging a notice requiring her to furnish a Rs 10,000 personal bond with one surety to maintain peace during an inquiry.

However, the court directed the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) to provide Bora with all material relied upon in the proceedings. It also asked the magistrate to examine whether a bond must be furnished at the outset or whether the need for it should be assessed as the inquiry progresses.

The court directed the SEM to consider the scope of Section 135 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which deals with inquiries into the truth of information underlying preventive proceedings.

The notice was issued on October 17 under Section 126 of the BNSS, following Bora’s preventive detention after she participated in the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march in Delhi on October 16. The demonstration demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over anomalies in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The notice directed Bora to appear before the SEM on October 19 and explain why she should not be required to furnish the bond and surety.

In her plea, drafted by lawyer Abhik Chimni, Bora argued that the notice was vague, factually inaccurate, and unsupported by material indicating that she was likely to breach the peace.

The proceedings stem from allegations that Bora raised slogans at Mandi House, repeatedly protested near Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and encouraged people to join the demonstration.

The Delhi Police opposed the plea, arguing that it was not maintainable. During the hearing, Bora’s senior counsel argued that citizens did not need permission to hoist the national flag and that seeking a change of regime was not improper in a democracy.

The police argued that a regime could be changed only through elections, not by “lumpen elements congregating in New Delhi.”

The detailed judgment is awaited.