Neha Bora Challenges Peace Bond Notice Over October Protest
Neha Bora, the national president of the All India Students Association, urged the Delhi High Court to hold that seeking regime change in a democracy is not inherently wrongful. The submission was made while the court was considering her petition challenging a notice to execute a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety during an inquiry into alleged breaches of peace.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma opposed the contention, drawing the court’s attention to material including a joint press conference attended by Bora at which a statement on regime change was made. Senior advocate Gopal Sankarnarayan, appearing for Bora, responded that there was nothing wrong with seeking regime change through a democracy.
Justice Subramonium Prasad heard the parties for more than two and a half hours and reserved the verdict. The judge indicated that the orders would be pronounced on Friday at 6 pm. The available record therefore does not contain a final ruling on the petition or on the personal bond.
Is Seeking Regime Change Wrong in a Democracy?
No, merely seeking regime change in a democracy is not inherently wrong, senior advocate Gopal Sankarnarayan told the Delhi High Court for Neha Bora. The submission was made in response to the Additional Solicitor General’s objection to her alleged call for regime change. The court, however, reserved its verdict and did not finally determine the contention on Thursday.
Provisions Challenged by Bora
Bora’s petition challenges an October 17 notice issued by a Special Executive Magistrate. The notice was made under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 135(3) BNSS.
Under Section 126, a magistrate may require a person to show cause why a bond for keeping peace or maintaining good behaviour should not be executed when information is received that the person is likely to commit a breach of peace. Section 130 requires a magistrate, while acting under Sections 126 to 129, to issue a written order showing cause where it is deemed necessary to require a person to execute a bond or bail bond for keeping peace or maintaining good behaviour.
Section 135(3) permits a magistrate, for reasons recorded in writing, to direct a person against whom an order under Section 130 has been made to execute a bond or bail bond for keeping peace or maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry. It also permits detention in custody until the bond or bail bond is executed or, in default of execution, until the inquiry concludes. The proviso to that provision states that a person may not be directed to execute such a bond or bail bond where no proceedings are taken against that person under Sections 127, 128 or 129.
Allegations Underlying the Notice
The notice received by Bora on October 18 referred to alleged sloganeering at Mandi House, repeated protests around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS, and the allegation that she had instigated people to participate in a protest at Connaught Place on October 16.
Bora stated in her petition that she had called for a peaceful gathering at Mandi House at 5 pm on October 16 to unfurl the national flag at Central Park in Connaught Place as part of protests against the Chief Election Commissioner. She alleged that she was detained at approximately 5:30 pm, taken to an undisclosed location and subsequently to R.K. Puram Police Station, where she remained overnight before being released at 6 am on October 17.
Grievance Against the Proceedings
Her petition seeks quashing of the notice and the proceedings arising from it, together with a direction restraining the authorities from taking coercive action against her. Bora’s principal contention is that the notice does not disclose any material establishing a likelihood of breach of peace, which she regards as a necessary condition for initiating preventive proceedings under Section 126 BNSS.
The personal bond, the coercive consequence of the impugned notice and the petition for its quashing therefore remained before the Delhi High Court. Justice Prasad’s reservation means that the legal effect of the notice and the broader submissions concerning democratic regime change were still awaiting determination when the court concluded its hearing.