The Delhi High Court on October 22, reserved its verdict on AISA National President Neha Bora’s challenge to a notice requiring her to execute a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety to maintain peace. Justice Subramonium Prasad reserved the decision after hearing arguments from both sides for over two and a half hours.
Background
Bora challenged a notice dated October 17 issued by a Special Executive Magistrate under Sections 126 and 130, read with Section 135(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). These provisions deal with preventive proceedings where authorities apprehend a possible breach of peace.
According to her petition, Bora had called for a peaceful gathering at Mandi House on October 16 as part of protests against the Chief Election Commissioner. She alleged that she was detained shortly after arriving and later held at R.K. Puram Police Station overnight.
Her plea seeks quashing of the notice and related proceedings, along with protection against coercive action.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Bora, argued that the notice lacked the necessary legal basis and that the authorities had not adequately established a likelihood of breach of peace. He also questioned whether the Magistrate had independently assessed the information relied upon.
He submitted,
“This notice does not meet with essential requirements as mandated by law under Section 136.”
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, representing the Delhi Police, opposed the challenge. He referred to police records, previous FIRs and the circumstances surrounding the protests to support the preventive proceedings.
The Bench questioned whether a Magistrate must independently assess the credibility of information before initiating proceedings. It also raised concerns about procedural safeguards when personal liberty is involved.
The Court observed,
“When liberty is under challenge, that too when it is preventive in nature, the only safeguard available to a petitioner is procedural.”
It further noted the concern that a person could feel prejudged when required to demonstrate that they would maintain peace.
After hearing both sides, the Delhi High Court reserved its verdict and scheduled its pronouncement for October 23, 2026, at 6 PM.
