The National President of the All India Students Association (AISA), Neha, has moved the Delhi High Court challenging a notice issued by a Special Executive Magistrate proposing to require her to execute a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during an inquiry, following her participation in the 'Lehra Do Tiranga' protest in Delhi on October 16.In her writ petition,...
The National President of the All India Students Association (AISA), Neha, has moved the Delhi High Court challenging a notice issued by a Special Executive Magistrate proposing to require her to execute a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during an inquiry, following her participation in the 'Lehra Do Tiranga' protest in Delhi on October 16.
In her writ petition, Neha has challenged the notice dated October 17, 2026, issued under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), read with Section 135(3). She has sought quashing of the notice and the proceedings arising from it, besides a direction restraining the authorities from taking coercive action against her.
The petition states that Neha had called for a peaceful gathering at Mandi House at 5 PM on October 16 to unfurl the national flag at the Central Park 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 impugned 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.
Neha has argued that the allegations are vague and factually incorrect, and that the authorities have not supplied the underlying order and material relied upon to issue the notice. Citing a judgment of the Orissa High Court in Sumitra Dhal v. State of Odisha (2026), she contends that the information forming the basis of an order under Section 130 of the BNSS must be provided to the person concerned.
The petition further disputes the allegation that she instigated people to participate in a demonstration at Central Park, Connaught Place. It states that her call was for a peaceful gathering at Mandi House and that she was detained from that location.
The AISA President has also challenged the reliance on prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS. According to the petition, the order dated August 23, 2026, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sub-Division Parliament Street, prohibited meetings, sloganeering, speeches and assemblies of five or more persons across the sub-division for 60 days, but excluded the exempted area along Jantar Mantar Road.
She contends that the notice does not identify any specific prohibitory order or incident that she allegedly violated. The petition also argues that the August 23 order did not extend to Mandi House.Invoking Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, which protect freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peacefully, the petitioner argues that the routine use of prohibitory orders against calls for protests amounts to an unreasonable restriction on fundamental rights.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, the petition submits that such restrictions must be justified by an imminent and genuine emergency and cannot be used as a routine preventive measure.
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.