AISA president Neha Bora on Thursday defended the call for regime change as a legitimate expression of democratic dissent before the Delhi High Court, which was hearing her challenge to preventive proceedings initiated by the Delhi Police following protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
Appearing for Bora, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that advocating a change of government was not, by itself, unlawful. He argued that the student leader had called for a peaceful protest and had neither incited violence nor exhorted anyone to commit an offence.
The submission came during the hearing of Bora’s petition challenging a notice issued by a Special Executive Magistrate requiring her to furnish a personal bond of ₹10,000, along with one surety, to maintain peace during an inquiry.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Delhi Police, opposed the plea and argued that the call for regime change had to be assessed in the context of the surrounding circumstances. He submitted that political change should be pursued through democratic and electoral processes and contended that the authorities were justified in initiating preventive action in view of the apprehended disturbance of public order.
The petition assails proceedings initiated under Sections 126, 130 and 135(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. These provisions govern preventive action intended to secure bonds for keeping the peace and the procedure applicable to such proceedings.
Bora has sought quashing of the notice and the consequential proceedings, contending that the action taken against her lacks a sufficient legal and factual basis.
During the hearing, the Bench questioned the extent to which a Special Executive Magistrate must independently scrutinise police information before initiating preventive proceedings. The Court examined whether the mere allegation that a person had raised slogans could justify such action without an assessment of the material placed before the authority.
The Bench also sought clarification on the material forming the basis of the notice and the extent to which it must be disclosed to the person concerned to enable an effective response.
The police, however, maintained that the proceedings were not initiated mechanically. The ASG submitted that the magistrate had considered the relevant material and had sought an explanation from the investigating officer before proceeding against Bora.
The notice reportedly refers to allegations of sloganeering at Mandi House, participation in protests despite prohibitory restrictions under Section 163 of the BNSS, and instigation of people to join a demonstration at Connaught Place.
Bora disputes these allegations. Her case is that she had called for a peaceful gathering at Mandi House on October 16 as part of the protests against the Chief Election Commissioner and was detained shortly after reaching the location. She has also disputed the allegation that she instigated people to participate in a separate demonstration at Central Park, Connaught Place.
Her counsel argued that the circumstances of her detention and the material cited by the authorities did not warrant the initiation of preventive proceedings. The petition further alleges that the action infringes her fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression, peaceful assembly and personal liberty under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Bora was detained on October 16 and released the following morning. She subsequently challenged the peace-bond notice before the High Court.
After hearing the parties for more than two-and-a-half hours, Justice Subramonium Prasad reserved judgment and indicated that the decision would be pronounced on Friday at 6 PM.
The post Call for regime change not unlawful in a democracy: Neha Bora tells Delhi High Court appeared first on India Legal.