All India Students’ Association president Neha Bora on Saturday said she would not sign a peace bond, a day after Delhi High Court rejected her challenge to a notice from a special executive magistrate that asked her to execute such a bond.
“We will not sign any peace bond, which is a tactic of curbing dissent,” the Leftist student leader, the face of the youth protests against the SIR and chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, told a news conference.
Neha later appeared for a hearing before the SEM — an assistant commissioner of police — who gave her documents relating to the matter as directed by the high court. The next hearing is on October 29.
Outside the Mandir Marg police station, where the SEM sat, a Rightwing crowd shouted slogans against Neha and in favour of the army and the police.
Earlier, at the parliamentary office of the CPIML Liberation, of which AISA is the student arm, Neha had said that demonstrating peacefully is a democratic right. She asked how voicing concerns against the government could be construed as a threat to peace.
“Whose peace am I being asked to keep? Signing such peace bonds is no less than signing away our democratic right to dissent,” she said.
Neha said she would continue challenging the peace bond notice to her before the courts.
“On one hand, the Constitution gives us the right to dissent, to raise our voice against the violation of our fundamental rights; on the other hand, such peace bonds are invoked only to detain people in the name of breach of peace,” she said.
She cited the recent detention of Cockroach Janta Party founder Abhijeet Dipke — who had signed a peace bond on October 10 — ahead of a protest programme.
The SEM’s notice asked Neha to appear before him and execute a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety “for keeping the peace for the period of inquiry”.
Section 126 of the BNSS empowers SEMs to ask a person to sign such a bond if there is credible information that the individual is likely to commit a breach of peace, disturb public tranquillity, or do a wrongful act that may cause a disturbance.
On Friday, Delhi High Court rejected Neha’s challenge to the notice saying the SEM had “sufficient material” before him to act as he had.
It added: “At this juncture, this court deems it necessary to direct the respondent/ State to provide all the material to the petitioner on which reliance will be placed at the time of enquiry and on which basis the impugned notice has been issued, when the petitioner appears before the SEM.
“The SEM is also directed to ensure that the principles of natural justice are not violated before passing any order directing furnishing of a bond.”
Neha told reporters: “It’s already been questioned in court, as to why this exists, and the court also gave a positive response, that these are excessive. These are excessive measures that have been taken, and we hope... that as this case proceeds, there will be some relief in that too.”
An AISA statement said the high court had not gone into the merits of the case while upholding the notice. “However, the court order specified the procedural gaps committed by the Delhi Police. The order has asked the SEM court to supply all documents related to the inquiry against Neha,” AISA said.
“Failing this, the Delhi High Court has reiterated the constitutional safeguards that remain with us, protecting our basic fundamental right to protest. We will comply with all legal procedures wholeheartedly, but let this be clear that we are not going to sign any bond that violates our right to protest and demand accountability,” it said.