Neha Bora, president of the All India Students Association (AISA), has approached the Delhi High Court challenging a notice issued by the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) directing her to execute a personal bond of ₹10,000 with a surety and to maintain peace during the period of inquiry. The notice, dated October 17, was served on her on October 18, requiring her appearance before the SEM on October 19.
According to Bora’s plea, the notice was issued under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, read with Section 135(3), on the grounds of apprehended breach of public peace and tranquillity. The notice cited allegations of sloganeering at Mandi House, repeated protests around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and allegedly instigating participation in a protest at Connaught Place.
Bora’s legal team stated that she was detained on October 16 while attending a gathering at Mandi House. She alleged that she was taken to an undisclosed location and subsequently to RK Puram police station, where she was held overnight before being released at 6 AM the following day. She received the SEM notice on October 18.
In her plea, Bora has argued that the notice fails to disclose any material establishing a likelihood of breach of peace, which she contends is a jurisdictional prerequisite for proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS. She submitted that every allegation in the notice pertains to peaceful protest and that no specific event or period during which a breach of peace is apprehended has been identified. The plea further stated that no prior incident alleging breach of peace has been specifically mentioned in the notice.
Bora has disputed the allegation concerning the Connaught Place protest, asserting that her call was for a peaceful gathering at Mandi House at 5 pm on October 16, where she was subsequently detained. She contended that the proceedings under the BNSS are preventive in nature and not punitive, and that the notice, by omitting any indication of likely violence or disturbance, lacks the foundation required to invoke such preventive measures.
She has alleged that the notice amounts to an attempt to curb peaceful dissent and violates her fundamental rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and personal liberty under the Constitution. Her legal representatives, advocates Abhik Chimni, Moksha Sharma, Ayan Dasgupta Samarendra, Pranjal Abrol, and Gurupal Singh, confirmed the development and stated that they would inform the SEM that Bora would not sign the bond, with further action to be taken based on the magistrate’s response.
Bora’s legal team noted that the Delhi High Court is currently shut for Dussehra vacation and will reopen only on October 26. They indicated that they may seek an urgent hearing during the vacation period, depending on the SEM’s response to their refusal to comply with the notice.
The notice required Bora to execute a personal bond of ₹10,000 with a surety, conditioning it on her maintaining peace during the inquiry. Bora’s plea maintains that such a direction cannot be sustained in the absence of any substantive basis for apprehending a breach of peace, emphasizing that preventive jurisdiction under the BNSS must be exercised only when there is material indicating a real likelihood of disturbance.