NEW DELHI, Oct 23: The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora challenging a notice issued by a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) directing her to appear before the magistrate to furnish a bond of Rs 10,000 and sign a peace bond giving an assurance to maintain peace.
Bora had approached the High Court seeking to challenge the proceedings initiated by the SEM, including the direction to execute the bond. However, the court rejected her plea.
“I am rejecting the writ petition at this juncture,” said Justice Subramonium Prasad while delivering the order. Opposing the petition, the Delhi Police argued that Bora’s plea was not maintainable. The police had challenged her attempt to contest the SEM’s notice before the High Court.
The notice was issued on October 17 under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). It directed Bora to appear before the SEM on October 19 and explain why she should not be asked to execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000, along with one surety, to maintain peace during the enquiry.
In her petition, prepared by lawyer Abhik Chimni, Bora argued that the notice was vague and factually incorrect. She maintained that it did not provide material or information to support the claim that she was likely to breach the peace.
The Delhi Police opposed her challenge, contending that the petition was not maintainable. The High Court ultimately declined to entertain the plea at this stage, while issuing directions to the SEM regarding the disclosure of material to Bora during the proceedings.
The preventive proceedings against Bora reportedly stem from allegations of sloganeering at Mandi House on October 16, protests around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and allegedly encouraging people to participate in the demonstration held that day.
Bora was taken into preventive detention on October 16 while she was on her way to join the Cockroach Janta Party’s ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march in Connaught Place. She was released the following day, October 17, when the police notice was issued. The notice sought to initiate proceedings before the SEM to determine whether Bora should be required to furnish a bond as an assurance of maintaining peace.
During Thursday’s hearing, Bora’s senior counsel argued that citizens did not require permission to hoist the national flag. The counsel also submitted that calling for a change of government was not wrong in a democratic system. The arguments formed part of Bora’s challenge to the preventive proceedings initiated against her. However, the High Court rejected her writ petition on Friday.
Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita deals with proceedings to require a person to execute a bond for keeping the peace. It empowers an Executive Magistrate, including a Special Executive Magistrate acting within the law, to initiate such proceedings when information indicates that a person is likely to breach the peace, disturb public tranquillity or commit an act that could cause such a disturbance.
The provision is preventive in nature. It allows authorities to seek an assurance of good conduct for the relevant period rather than waiting for a breach of peace to occur. In Bora’s case, the notice asked her to show cause why she should not execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety.
(Manas Dasgupta)