The Delhi High Court will pronounce its order at 6 pm on Friday on a petition filed by All India Students' Association (AISA) president Neha Bora, challenging a notice directing her to explain why she should not furnish a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety to maintain peace.
The court had reserved its order on Thursday, October 22, after hearing arguments from Bora's counsel and Delhi Police.
The notice was issued by a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in connection with an inquiry linked to Bora's participation in the October 16 'Lehra Do Tiranga' protest.
Through her petition, Bora has sought the quashing of the notice and protection from coercive action by the police.
Delhi Police, however, told the court that the notice had not resulted in any order requiring her to furnish a bond or imposed any penal consequence.
Why Neha Bora Approached the High Court
Bora was detained by Delhi Police at Mandi House on October 16 while she was on her way to the 'Lehra Do Tiranga' march called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) at Connaught Place. She was released the following morning.
Subsequently, the SEM issued a notice asking her to explain why she should not execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during the inquiry.
Bora approached the High Court on October 19, describing the notice as vague, factually incorrect, and unconstitutional. Her petition argued that it violated her fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
As the High Court was on Dussehra vacation until October 26, her lawyers sought an urgent hearing before a vacation bench. Her legal team also said it would inform the SEM that Bora would not sign the bond while the matter was pending before the High Court.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Bora, argued that the SEM had issued the notice without applying his mind and described it as a 'cut-and-paste' exercise.
Responding to material cited by the police, he also argued that seeking a change of government was not wrong in a democracy.
Bora has also been involved in protests against alleged irregularities in the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Appearing for Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma argued that Bora's petition effectively sought to substitute the High Court's view for that of the magistrate, who had not yet decided whether a bond was required.
Sharma said Bora could appear before the SEM either personally or through a lawyer. He also referred to six FIRs against her and a joint press conference she had attended, arguing that the authorities had sufficient grounds to examine the possibility of a breach of peace.
He further informed the court that an order under Section 163 of the BNSS was in force in the Mandi House area.
During the hearing, the bench observed that requiring a person to furnish a bond while an inquiry is pending could operate as a form of suspension until the proceedings conclude. It also noted that the matter involved considerations under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
In a related development, a Special Executive Magistrate on October 17 granted conditional bail to CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke in preventive proceedings under Sections 126 and 170 of the BNSS.
Under the order, Dipke is required to furnish a bond to maintain peace for one year.
The Delhi High Court's order in Bora's case is expected to determine whether the notice issued to her will remain in force or whether she will receive protection from coercive action. The proceedings before the SEM will continue unless the High Court directs otherwise.