The Delhi High Court has dismissed AISA president Neha Bora's plea challenging a notice issued by a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) directing her to furnish a Rs 10,000 bond with a surety to maintain peace during the inquiry and appear before the lower court.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed AISA president Neha Bora’s plea challenging a notice issued by a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) directing her to furnish a Rs 10,000 bond with a surety to maintain peace during the inquiry and appear before the lower court.
However, the Delhi High Court said the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) must provide Neha Bora with all the material relied upon in the proceedings.
The court also directed the magistrate to consider the scope and implications of Section 135 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), particularly whether Bora could be required to furnish a bond at the outset or whether that requirement should be considered during the inquiry, depending on whether subsequent incidents indicate a threat to peace.
After an inquiry has begun, Section 135 of the BNSS allows a magistrate to direct a person to furnish a bond to maintain peace if immediate preventive measures are deemed necessary.
Neha Bora had challenged a notice issued by the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM), directing her to furnish a bond of Rs 10,000 to “maintain peace.”
Opposing the petition, the Delhi Police had argued that Neha Bora’s plea was not maintainable.
The notice was issued after Bora was placed in preventive detention following her participation in the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march in Delhi on October 16, demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged anomalies in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Issued under Section 126 of the BNSS, the notice directed Bora to appear before the SEM on October 19. She was asked to show cause why she should not be required to execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000, along with one surety, to maintain peace while the inquiry continued.
Section 126 of the BNSS allows an SEM to require such a bond when credible information indicates that a person may breach the peace, disrupt public tranquillity or carry out a wrongful act likely to cause disturbance.
In the petition drafted by lawyer Abhik Chimni, Bora contended that the notice was vague and factually inaccurate. She also said it did not contain any material or information supporting the claim that she was likely to breach the peace.
The proceedings before the SEM stem from allegations that Bora raised slogans at Mandi House on October 16, repeatedly protested near Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders imposed under Section 163 of the BNSS, and encouraged people to join the demonstration held that day.
During Thursday's hearing, Bora's senior counsel argued that citizens did not require permission to hoist the national flag. The counsel also submitted that seeking a change of regime was not improper in a democracy.
The matter centres on the October 17 notice, Bora's preventive detention and the allegations linked to the October 16 demonstration. The detailed judgment remains awaited.
- Ends