Delhi High Court Reserves Verdict On Neha Bora's Plea Against Peace Bond Notice Amid Anti-CEC Protests, Judgment Tomorrow
The Delhi High Court on Thursday (October 22) reserved its verdict on a plea by National President of All India Students Association (AISA) Neha Bora challenging a notice to execute a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during an inquiry, following her participation in 'Lehra Do Tiranga' protest on October 16.
After hearing the parties for over 2.5 hours, Justice Subramonium Prasad reserved its verdict and said that orders will be pronounced on Friday at 6pm.
Bora has challenged an October 17 notice issued by a Special Executive Magistrate under Sections 126 (Magistrate may show cause an individual why peace bond may not be executed if he receives information that a person is likely commit a breach of the peace) and 130(when the Magistrate acting under section 126, section 127, section 128 or section 129, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under he shall make an order in writing mentioning certain particulars) BNSS, read with Section 135(3) BNSS.
Under Section 135(3) Magistrate can, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the person in respect of whom the order under section 130 has been made to execute a bond or bail bond, for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry and may detain him in custody until such bond or bail bond is executed or, in default of execution, until the inquiry is concluded. The proviso states where no proceedings are taken against a person under sections 127, 128, or 129 then such person shall not be directed to execute a bond or bail bond for maintaining good behaviour.
Section 135(1) empowers magistrate to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken against a person who appears, based on show cause notice under Section 130.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appearing for Bora said that the petitioner, a leader of AISA, had made a protest call on October 16 which was peaceful and she had never called for any violence.
He said that when Bora went to Mandi house on the evening of October 16, she was detained 10-15 mins later. On that date she has not guilty of any offence, including that of breaching peace, he said.
He said that Bora's detention was completely illegal and that she was not involved in a separate protest call given by another organization, i.e., CJP protest to unfurl National Flag at Connaught Place Central Park.
He said that after Bora was detained she was not allowed to reach out immediately to her family or lawyers. He said that Section 163 BNSS (Power of Executive Magistrate to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger) was not invoked in the area from where Bora was detained, however loudspeakers on the location announced that Section 163 was applicable.
He said that the executive magistrate in the present case is an Assistant Commissioner of Police and questioned if his order/notice had substance. He said that stage for execution of personal bond had not yet reached and it will only reach when an enquiry begins.
He further said that the purport of issuing show cause notice is to satisfy the magistrate during the enquiry as to why peace bond need not be furnished.
"This notice does not meet with essential requirements as mandated by law under Section 136 (Order to give security)," he said.
Sankaranarayanan said that the notice was mechanical, as for seeking an interim bond also, a preliminary enquiry is essential before inviting the individuals response on interim bond.
He stressed that once enquiry is completed, then only stage of Section 136 BNSS will be applicable where Magistrate can direct the petitioner to execute a bond to maintain good behaviour.
He said that the satisfaction of the magistrate was not made out in the present case, and that the information based on which notice was given in the present case was "hearsay".
As ASG Chetan Sharma began his submissions for Delhi Police, the court orally asked, "Lets assume that someone tells a magistrate that X was there shouting slogans, and on that basis, he issues 126. Before making an enquiry, without finding out X might not be there at all… Is it necessary or not for magistrate to do an independent search to satisfy himself that information received is credible in nature?".
The court further asked that at the time when the enquiry is made, and when hearing is to be held on show cause notice, are documents supplied to the individual to defend himself.
ASG Sharma said that Section 126 has a wide band of the subjective satisfaction which need not translate itself into evidence or fact but should reflect what information was received.
The Court at this juncture remarked that when liberty is under challenge, that too when it is preventive in nature, the only safeguard available to a petitioner is procedural. It further said that Article 21 refers to procedure established by law based on which liberty can be curtailed.
The ASG then submitted that there were "12 violations" one after another by Bora and that this was examined by the magistrate.
He further said that Section 126 and Section 130 ride together when breach of peace is in question. He further referred to statements made by Bora in a press conference over "regime change" and said that regime change happens by votes and not by "lumpen elements in the nerve of New Delhi".
On the contention regarding non-application of mind by SEM, the ASG said that there was a definite source, there is general diary entry, past FIRs and offences, situation emerging on streets, and the SEM had also called the IO who was asked to give explanation. Thus, the ASG said, that the proceeding was akin to a hearing before cognizance of an offence is taken.
The court meanwhile said that, "The concern of the Petitioner is that I am already branded as a bad boy and asked to say u shall be a good boy. It is that stigma which a person has which has led to this proceeding. It has a facet in Article 21".
To this the ASG urged that will it mean that the six FIRs will be ignored. He further said that Section 163 CrPC was invoked in the area including Mandi House from where petitioner was detained.
"She says she has disassociated herself with other outfit and she is standalone is falsified as 163 was in force, there is a barricade which says 163, she was stopped, police being outnumbered, she ran…She ran towards CP," ASG said.
Background
Bora has sought quashing of the notice and the proceedings arising from it, besides a direction restraining the authorities from taking coercive action against her.
It states that Bora had called for a peaceful gathering at Mandi House at 5 PM on October 16 to unfurl the national flag at the Central Park in Connaught Place as a part of protests against the Chief Election Commissioner. She alleges that she was detained at around 5:30 PM, taken to an undisclosed location and subsequently to R.K. Puram Police Station, where she was held overnight before being released at 6 AM on October 17.
The notice, received by her on October 18, cites alleged sloganeering at Mandi House, repeated protests around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and the allegation that she instigated people to participate in a protest at Connaught Place on October 16.
The petition contends that the notice does not disclose any material establishing a likelihood of breach of peace, which is a necessary precondition for initiating preventive proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS.
The petition refers to orders passed by the Supreme Court on October 11 and October 15, 2026, in proceedings concerning restrictions on assemblies and Section 163 orders in New Delhi. It states that the Supreme Court had, on October 11, directed, among other things, that there should be no detention except in accordance with the procedure established by law, particularly in cases involving peaceful assemblies beyond the area covered by a Section 163 order.
On October 15, the Supreme Court directed the Union Government to place on record the Section 163 orders in force in New Delhi, apart from the order dated August 23, and adjourned challenges to their validity to November 19.
The petition was settled by Advocate Abhik Chimni and filed through advocates Moksha Sharma, Ayan Dasgupta, Samerendra, Pranjal Abrol and Gurpal Singh.
(Compiled by Malavika Prasad)