Delhi High Court dismissed Bora’s challenge to a ₹10,000 peace-bond notice.
The court directed the magistrate to provide relevant material before passing orders.
Bora’s counsel argued the protest was peaceful and the notice mechanical.
The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed AISA president Neha Bora’s plea challenging a notice requiring a ₹10,000 personal bond with one surety to maintain peace, while directing the Special Executive Magistrate to provide the relevant material to Bora before passing any order in the inquiry.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said “adequate safeguards” were in place and directions had been issued to the magistrate “to take care” and supply all materials to Bora, Live Law reported.
The petition challenged an October 17 notice issued under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), read with Section 135(3). Bora sought to quash the notice and subsequent proceedings and prevent coercive action.
Appearing for Bora, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that the October 16 protest call was peaceful and contained no appeal for violence. He also submitted that seeking a change of government was legitimate in a democracy.
Sankaranarayanan described the notice as mechanical and argued that a preliminary inquiry was necessary before requiring a response on an interim bond.
Opposing the plea, Additional Solicitor General Sharma argued that Section 126 allowed the magistrate to act on information giving rise to an apprehension of a breach of peace. He submitted that such information need not, at that stage, amount to established evidence or fact. The government’s counsel also cited prohibitory orders covering Mandi House, where Bora was detained.
According to the petition, Bora had called for a peaceful gathering at Mandi House at 5 pm on October 16 as part of protests against the Chief Election Commissioner. Bora alleged that they were detained around 5.30 pm, taken to an undisclosed location and subsequently moved to R.K. Puram police station, where they remained overnight before being released at 6 am on October 17.
The notice, which Bora said was received on October 18, cited alleged sloganeering at Mandi House, repeated protests near Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders and alleged instigation of people to join a demonstration at Connaught Place, Live Law reported.
Bora disputed the grounds, arguing that the notice disclosed no material establishing a likelihood of a breach of peace, a requirement for initiating preventive proceedings under Section 126.
The proceedings concern preventive provisions that allow a magistrate to seek an explanation from a person considered likely to breach the peace. Section 130 requires the grounds and specified particulars to be recorded in writing, while Section 135 provides for an inquiry into the information and, in specified circumstances, an interim peace bond pending its conclusion.
