The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its order on a petition filed by All India Students' Association (AISA) president Neha Bora challenging a police notice directing her to furnish a peace bond before a special executive magistrate. The court said it would pronounce its order at 6 pm on October 23.
Justice Subramonium Prasad reserved the order after hearing arguments from Bora's counsel and the Delhi Police for nearly three hours.
Bora, who has been actively involved in protests against alleged irregularities in the Election Commission's special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, has sought the quashing of the notice and protection from coercive action by the police.
Appearing for Bora, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that the special executive magistrate (SEM) had issued the notice without applying his mind to the case. He described it as a routine exercise involving the copying and pasting of material.
Referring to the police notice's claim that Bora had hoisted the national flag without permission, Sankaranarayanan argued that citizens were not required to seek permission to hoist the Tricolour.
Questioning the basis of the notice, he said, "Question is does this (notice) have substance? We don't need permission to hoist the national flag. They need a class on law."
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Delhi Police, contested the maintainability of Bora's petition. He argued that the special executive magistrate had sufficient material before him when the notice was issued and had applied his mind to the matter.
Issued on October 17 under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the notice directed Bora to appear before the SEM on October 19 and explain why she should not furnish a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 along with one surety to maintain peace during the inquiry.
Section 126 of the BNSS empowers an SEM to require a person to execute a bond when there is credible information suggesting that the individual is likely to breach the peace, disturb public tranquillity or commit an act that could cause such a disturbance.
Bora was taken into preventive detention on October 16 while travelling to join the Cockroach Janta Party's (CJP) 'Lehra Do Tiranga' march. She was released the following day.
In her petition, drafted by lawyer Abhik Chimni, Bora described the police notice as vague and factually incorrect, arguing that it did not provide any material to establish a likelihood of a breach of peace.
The petition also stated that the notice failed to specify the period, occasion or event during which the authorities apprehended a breach of peace. It alleged that the proceedings amounted to a misuse of preventive powers to curb peaceful dissent, violating Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 21 of the Constitution.
The proceedings initiated before the SEM refer to allegations of sloganeering at Mandi House on October 16, repeated protests near Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and allegedly encouraging people to join a demonstration at Connaught Place on the same day.
Challenging the allegation concerning the Connaught Place demonstration, the petition argued that Bora's call for a gathering and the incident cited in the notice were separate events. It stated that she had called for a peaceful gathering at Mandi House at 5 pm on October 16 and that records showed she was detained from that location.
"That the alleged disregard of 'prohibitory orders 163 BNSS' in the Notice does not identify any specific prohibitory order and incident. In fact the only order on record dated 23.08.2026 does not extend to Mandi House and exempts Jantar Mantar Road," the petition said.
(with inputs from PTI)