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

The court found sufficient material supported the notice but directed police to share it with Bora and the magistrate to uphold natural justice.

Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed the All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora’s petition challenging a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) notice directing her to furnish a personal bond to “maintain peace during an inquiry”.

A bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the SEM had sufficient material before issuing the notice and that the present case was not based on “hearsay material.” (HT Archive)

The notice followed Bora’s participation in the “Lehra Do Tiranga” march on October 16.

A bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the SEM had sufficient material before issuing the notice and that the present case was not based on “hearsay material.”

The court observed that the SEM had duly considered the information received, including three general diary entries and a kalandara (a police report submitted to a Magistrate) dated October 17 and had examined three witnesses, thereby satisfying the requirements under sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

In its 46-page verdict, the court further observed that the SEM was not required to conduct an exhaustive fact-finding exercise when forming an opinion on the apprehension of a breach of peace, saying that proceedings under Chapter IX of the BNSS are preventive, not punitive.

The SEM of the New Delhi district issued the notice on October 17. It directed Bora to appear before the SEM on October 19 and explain why she should not be asked to furnish a personal bond of ₹10,000 along with one surety to “maintain peace during the inquiry.”

Bora’s lawyer contended that the notice was issued mechanically, was a mere “cut-and-paste” exercise, and failed to satisfy the essential legal requirements.

Her lawyer further submitted that an inquiry was necessary even before directing the execution of an interim bond, contending that the Magistrate could not require Bora to furnish a personal bond pending completion of the inquiry without following the procedure prescribed by law.

The Delhi Police, represented by Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and standing counsel Ashish Dixit, contended that the notice had been issued after the “double and independent application of mind” and was supported by “substantial evidence”.

The court directed the Delhi Police to furnish Bora with all the material relied upon in issuing the impugned notice when she appears before the SEM. It also directed the SEM to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice before passing any order requiring her to furnish a bond.

The court added that the “present case is not based merely on hearsay material, as contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, but is also based on the kalandara dated 17.10.2026, which consists of the three (03) general diary entries registered at different Police Stations pertaining to different dates and events. As such, this Court cannot sit in the arm-chair of the SEM to test the subjective satisfaction of the sufficiency of material and as to whether the opinion has been correctly been arrived at by the SEM or not.”

“At this juncture, this Court deems it necessary to direct the respondent/State to provide all the material to the petitioner on which reliance will be placed at the time of enquiry and on which basis the impugned notice has been issued, when the petitioner appears before the SEM. The SEM is also directed to ensure that the principles of natural justice are not violated before passing any order directing furnishing of a bond,” the court said in the order.

The notice was issued the day Bora was released following her detention on Friday for participating in a flag march.

The notice cited three grounds for requiring her to execute the bond: alleged sloganeering at Mandi House on October 16, 2026; repeated protests in the vicinity of Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS; and the allegation that on October 16, she instigated people to participate in a protest at CP.