The Delhi High Court has rejected a petition filed by All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora challenging a notice issued by a Special Executive Magistrate directing her to furnish a personal bond of ₹10,000, along with one surety, to maintain peace during the pendency of an inquiry.
Justice Subramonium Prasad declined to interfere with the preventive proceedings initiated against Bora. However, the Court directed the authorities to furnish all relevant material relied upon for issuing the notice and highlighted questions concerning the interpretation and application of Section 135 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The petition arose from preventive action initiated by the Delhi Police following Bora’s detention during a gathering at Mandi House on October 16. The subsequent notice required her to appear before the Special Executive Magistrate and furnish the stipulated bond to ensure public peace and tranquillity during the inquiry.
Bora had challenged the notice issued under Sections 126 and 130, read with Section 135(3) of the BNSS, contending that the proceedings were founded on vague and factually erroneous allegations and lacked sufficient material to establish a reasonable apprehension of breach of peace.
The notice reportedly referred to allegations of sloganeering at Mandi House, participation in repeated protests near Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and instigating people to participate in a demonstration at Connaught Place.
Disputing these allegations, Bora maintained that the gathering she had called for at Mandi House was peaceful and distinct from the demonstration at Connaught Place. She argued that the invocation of preventive powers in these circumstances impermissibly curtailed her fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression, peaceful assembly and personal liberty.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Bora, submitted that her calls for mobilisation were directed towards peaceful protest and contained no exhortation to violence or unlawful conduct. He argued that the notice suffered from factual inaccuracies and non-application of mind, particularly in attributing the Connaught Place demonstration to her.
Counsel also questioned the propriety of the proceedings on the ground that the Special Executive Magistrate issuing the notice was himself a police officer. He contended that preventive jurisdiction could not be deployed as a punitive instrument for past participation in protests or as a mechanism to pre-emptively restrict constitutionally protected dissent.
Opposing the petition, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Delhi Police, submitted that Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS had to be construed harmoniously. He maintained that preventive proceedings were intended to avert potential disturbances to public order and could not be defeated by an unduly technical interpretation of the statutory framework.
The State argued that the notice was supported by material indicating a likelihood of breach of peace and that the authorities had grounds to apprehend a disturbance in view of the circumstances surrounding the protests.
While refusing to quash the notice, the High Court directed that the material relied upon by the authorities be supplied to Bora. It also flagged the question of whether Section 135 of the BNSS contemplated the furnishing of a bond at the threshold or whether such a requirement would arise during the inquiry in light of subsequent developments indicating a likelihood of breach of peace.
The Court’s directions require the statutory procedure to be examined in the light of the material forming the basis of the preventive action. The rejection of Bora’s writ petition does not, by itself, constitute a final adjudication of the factual allegations underlying the notice.
The proceedings concern the exercise of preventive jurisdiction under the BNSS, which empowers authorities to initiate action to avert an apprehended breach of peace, subject to compliance with the statutory safeguards governing such proceedings.
The post Delhi High Court rejects Neha Bora’s plea against notice to furnish peace bond appeared first on India Legal.