New Delhi, Oct 23 The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to interfere with a police notice asking All India Students’ Association president Neha Bora to execute a peace bond and held that there was sufficient material before the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) to take such action against her.
Dismissing Bora’s petition challenging the October 17 notice, Justice Subramonium Prasad said the notice met the requirement of law and was “not based merely on hearsay material”.
The court asserted that at this stage, the high court “cannot sit in the armchair of the SEM” to test his subjective satisfaction of the material, which included six FIRs mentioning the student leader, general diary entries showing certain incidents that took place at various places and the existence of prohibitory orders in the Mandi House area.
“The satisfaction of the SEM regarding breach of peace in the area where the petitioner was detained and where she was urging people to join her protest is a commercial area receiving very high footfall from office-goers and there are important roads connecting the heart of the city to various other areas.
“There are a large number of hotels, banks, offices, vendors and therefore, it cannot be said that there was no material at all before the SEM before proceeding against the petitioner under Sections 126 and Section 130 of the BNSS,” the court said.
“Suffice it to say that in the opinion of this court, there was sufficient material before the magistrate before action was taken under Section 126 of the BNSS,” it held.
Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) empowers the SEM to enforce such bond signing if there is credible information that a person is likely to breach peace, disturb public tranquillity, or commit a wrongful act that may cause disturbance.
In the 46-page judgement, the court clarified that the petitioner was free to raise a fresh challenge at an appropriate stage, including after passing of a final order by the SEM, and also directed police to provide all the material to her at the time of inquiry.
The court also directed the SEM to ensure that the principles of natural justice are not violated before passing any order directing furnishing of a bond.
Bora, who has been at the forefront of protests against the alleged irregularities in the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, had sought quashing of the notice and directions to police not to take any coercive action against her.
She has been asked to appear before the SEM on October 24 at 2 pm.
During the hearing on Thursday, Bora’s senior counsel had argued that citizens did not need permission to hoist the national flag and that there was nothing wrong in seeking regime change in a democracy.
Challenging the police notice, Bora’s lawyer had argued that there was no application of mind or independent opinion at the time of issuance of the notice and it was a mere cut-and-paste job.
Asserting that the nature of the SEM proceedings was “preventive” and to ensure that there was no breach of peace or tranquillity, Justice Prasad stated that at the stage of notice, the high court, under its writ jurisdiction, “does not sit on the armchair of the SEM” to decide if there was sufficient material or information.
The court clarified that its scope was limited to examining “whether there was any material/information before the SEM at all and whether the SEM applied its mind on such material/information received by him” before proceeding to issue the notice.
Unless it was a case of nil material, which would shock the conscience of the court, the writ court would not interfere, the court said, as it clarified that the notice need not “read like a judgment” but merely set out the substance of the information received by the SEM.
The court further observed that there were “sufficient checks and balance(s)” in law, which provide an opportunity to the person receiving the notice to defend herself and be discharged by the SEM if it was proved during the inquiry that the bond was not necessary for maintaining peace or good behaviour.
“In the opinion of this court, the SEM, in the present case, has duly examined the information received by him, including the three general diary entries along with kalandara dated 17.10.2026 and examined the three witnesses, which would satisfy the requirements under Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS,” the court said.
“Undoubtedly, the SEM would apply his own mind to the material/information placed before him and only then arrive at a conclusion regarding furnishing of a personal bond or bail bond,” the court ordered.
The court left it open for the SEM to decide on the insistence on a bond at the first instance, considering that the legal provision provides for furnishing a bond only if there was an apprehension of breach of peace or disturbance after the commencement and before the completion of the inquiry.
The police notice asked Bora to appear before the SEM on October 19 and show cause as to why she should not execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety “for keeping peace for a period of enquiry”.
Delhi Police defended the notice, stating that there was sufficient information and material with the SEM to form an opinion and issue the notice.
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 Delhi’s Connaught Place. She was released on October 17.
The proceedings before the SEM are based on allegations of sloganeering at Mandi House on October 16, repeated protests around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and instigating people to participate in the October 16 demonstration.
(PTI News)
