New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday rejected a petition by All India Students Association (AISA) national president Neha Bora challenging a police notice that directed her to execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during an inquiry arising from her detention during an anti-Chief Election Commissioner protest on October 16.
Justice Subramonium Prasad, while pronouncing the order, observed that there were "adequate safeguards" in place. He directed the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) to "take care" and ensure that all relevant materials were provided to Bora before passing any order following the inquiry. The petition was dismissed at this stage, with the court making clear that the preventive proceedings themselves would continue under the law.
Bora had challenged the October 17 notice issued by the Special Executive Magistrate under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), read with Section 135(3). The notice followed her detention at Mandi House in Delhi on October 16, where she had gone to take part in a protest calling for the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The case arose from a protest call issued by Bora for a gathering at Mandi House at 5 pm on October 16 to unfurl the national flag at Central Park in Connaught Place as part of the wider agitation against the CEC. She alleged that she was detained at around 5.30 pm, taken to an undisclosed location and subsequently to the R K Puram police station, where she was held overnight and released at 6 am on October 17.
The October 17 notice, which Bora said she received on October 18, cited alleged sloganeering at Mandi House, repeated protests around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and an allegation that she had instigated people to participate in the protest at Connaught Place on October 16.
Under the provisions invoked, the magistrate sought a show cause as to why she should not execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety for keeping peace for the period of enquiry.
Section 126 of the BNSS empowers an executive magistrate to require a person to show cause why a peace bond should not be executed where there is information suggesting a potential breach of peace. Under Section 135(3), a magistrate may direct the person to execute a bond to maintain good behaviour until the inquiry concludes, provided proceedings are underway under Sections 127, 128 or 129.
These are the new-code equivalents of the preventive-action provisions that existed under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Bora, argued that the AISA leader had called for a peaceful assembly to unfurl the national flag and had never incited violence. He contended that the notice had been issued mechanically, without the preliminary inquiry necessary to justify an interim bond, and submitted that advocating for a change in the person heading the Election Commission remains valid political expression within a democratic setup.
In her petition, settled by lawyer Abhik Chimni, Bora said the police notice was vague, factually incorrect and contained no material or information to substantiate the likelihood of a breach of peace. She sought the quashing of the notice and the proceedings arising from it, along with protection against coercive action by the authorities.
The court's refusal to interfere at this stage means the inquiry before the Special Executive Magistrate will proceed. The direction to furnish all relevant material to Bora is significant, because it addresses one of the central grievances in the petition — that the preventive proceedings were being carried out without disclosing the basis on which the likelihood of a breach of peace was being asserted.
The case sits within a broader pattern of confrontation around the Election Commission this month. Protests demanding the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner have continued across the capital, driven by allegations around the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
Earlier this week, farm organisations wrote to the President demanding the removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, and on Friday the Punjab Assembly passed a resolution seeking an independent inquiry into alleged irregularities in the functioning of the Election Commission under his tenure.
The detention on October 16 has become a touchpoint in that agitation. The AISA chief was taken into preventive detention while she was on her way to join the protest at Connaught Place, and her overnight detention and subsequent release have been cited by student groups as an instance of the administration using preventive-action provisions against protesters.
Preventive proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS are designed as a forward-looking measure: they do not punish past conduct but seek to secure peace where the authorities claim to have information about a likely breach. Courts have, over the years, insisted that such proceedings cannot be initiated on vague or mechanical grounds and that the person concerned must be told the basis of the action so that they can show cause.
It is in that context that the High Court's direction — that the magistrate provide Bora with all relevant material before passing any order — will matter for the remainder of the inquiry.
A detailed copy of the judgment is awaited. The petition had been filed after Bora received the notice on October 18, two days after the events at Mandi House, and after she was asked to appear before the Special Executive Magistrate on October 19. The court's decision to hear the challenge and then reject it at this juncture leaves the preventive machinery in motion while placing the magistrate under a judicial direction to act fairly.
The broader agitation around the Election Commission has involved repeated gatherings in the capital, including at Jantar Mantar, where prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS have been invoked from time to time. Section 163, the BNSS equivalent of the erstwhile Section 144 of the CrPC, empowers a magistrate to issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger.
The notice to Bora cited repeated protests around Jantar Mantar despite such orders, suggesting that the authorities were treating the October 16 events as part of a continuing pattern rather than an isolated gathering.
Student organisations have, in turn, argued that the use of preventive-action provisions against protesters who were assembling peacefully to unfurl the national flag amounts to an overreach.
The AISA chief's account — that she was picked up at around 5.30 pm while heading to the protest, taken to an undisclosed location, held at the R K Puram police station overnight and released at 6 am the next morning — has been cited in student circles as an example of how quickly preventive detention can escalate. The police notice followed a day later, converting the detention into a formal inquiry under the BNSS.
A detailed copy of the judgment is awaited. Until then, the order stands as a limited ruling: the writ petition stands rejected at this juncture, but the inquiry must proceed with the safeguards the court has emphasised, including full disclosure of the material on which the state relies.
(Reporting based on The Tribune, The Telegraph and WION.)