The Delhi High Court has completed its hearing on a petition filed by All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora challenging a notice issued by a Special Executive Magistrate requiring her to furnish a bond of Rs 10,000 and maintain peace. Both sides presented arguments on the magistrate’s role, the right to protest and concerns related to law and order. The court will deliver its verdict at 6 pm on Friday.
Advocate Gopal Shankar Narayan, appearing for Neha Bora, questioned the notice issued under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
He told the court that Bora is an active AISA leader who has participated in protests demanding changes in government policies. According to the defence, a social media post had called on people to join the protest but did not ask anyone to engage in violence.
Narayan argued that the protests were peaceful and that expressing dissent or criticising government policies could not, by itself, constitute grounds for apprehending a breach of peace. He submitted that participation in a protest or the raising of slogans was not sufficient justification for police action.
Bora’s counsel told the court that a press conference was held at the Press Club on October 15. The following day, a social media post was shared expressing displeasure over the removal of Jantar Mantar from the list of designated protest sites. The post called on people to reach Mandi House at 4 pm.
According to the defence, the message contained no appeal for violence, violation of the law or disruption of public order. Narayan argued that calling people to assemble and inciting them to engage in unlawful activities were two distinct matters. On this basis, he questioned the procedure followed in issuing the notice.
Narayan submitted that Bora was detained shortly after reaching Mandi House on October 16. He said she had raised some slogans but had not engaged in any activity that could be considered a criminal offence.
The defence also alleged that Bora was taken to the RK Puram police station at night after her detention. According to her counsel, her family and other people remained unaware of her whereabouts for a considerable period. The defence described the action as unlawful and sought the court’s intervention.
During the hearing, the court questioned whether a magistrate must independently verify the information received before issuing a notice requiring a person to furnish a bond for maintaining peace under the BNSS.
The court asked whether, when action is initiated on the basis of information provided by an official, the magistrate should establish that the person concerned was actually present at the location and that the information against them was accurate. It also raised the question of whether the magistrate should examine media reports from the same day if they indicate that the person was present elsewhere.
The issue is relevant to Bora’s petition, which challenges the procedure followed in issuing the notice and the basis on which it was issued.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Delhi Police, argued that the possibility of a breach of peace was not limited to situations involving a conventional criminal offence. He submitted that the circumstances and a person’s activities could also be examined to determine whether public peace was likely to be affected.
Sharma argued that the concerned authority was entitled to form an opinion based on the information available and the surrounding circumstances. The police maintained that the purpose of such action was not to punish an individual but to prevent potential tensions and law-and-order problems.
During the hearing, Sharma claimed that rules had been violated on 12 occasions in matters involving Bora. He referred to previous incidents and records in support of the claim. The allegation was part of the police’s submissions before the court and did not constitute a judicial finding.
The ASG also referred to a press conference at which advocate Prashant Bhushan’s statement had been cited. Sharma said the statement referred to a change of government and that Bora had also been present at the event.
Responding to the argument, Bora’s counsel submitted that demanding a change of government was not wrong in a democracy. The court questioned whether it was necessary to examine this issue to decide the case.
Sharma responded that a change of government should take place through elections. He expressed the concern that gatherings in prominent areas of the national capital could affect law and order. The police cited this possibility in support of the requirement that Bora furnish a bond to maintain peace.
Addressing the question of whether the magistrate had applied independent consideration before issuing the notice, Sharma referred to entries in the general diary, earlier FIRs and other relevant records.
He submitted that the investigating officer had also been called and asked to provide an explanation.
