Last Updated:
AISA leader Neha Bora’s petition in HC: While the petition has been turned down, the HC has issued certain directions to the magistrate
AISA National President Neha Bora (Photo: PTI File)
In a major setback for activist Neha Bora, the Delhi High Court (HC) on Friday dismissed her petition which challenged a Delhi Police notice directing her to furnish a personal bond of ₹10,000 and one surety assuring that she would maintain peace during the inquiry.
The notice was issued after her participation in the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march on October 16.
Justice Subramonium Prasad passed the order while directing the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) to provide Bora with all the material that would be relied upon during the inquiry. The court also said the SEM must ensure that principles of natural justice are followed before passing any order requiring her to furnish a bond.
The High Court said there was sufficient material before the SEM to initiate preventive proceedings against Bora. It noted that the material included six FIRs, three General Diary entries and prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The court observed that the case was not based merely on hearsay. It said the material included a kalandra dated October 17, 2026, as well as three General Diary entries relating to different dates and events.
The HC also noted that the material indicated Bora’s alleged involvement in repeated protest activities despite prohibitory orders. According to the police material placed before the SEM, Bora allegedly arrived at Mandi House with around 40 to 50 protesters on October 16 and moved towards Barakhamba Road while raising slogans.
The court rejected Bora’s argument that Mandi House was not covered by the Section 163 BNSS prohibitory order. It noted that the material before the SEM included General Diary entries, details of FIRs and information relating to detentions under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act.
The High Court further held that a writ court cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the SEM at the show cause notice stage, where the question is whether there is sufficient material to initiate preventive proceedings.
The court also underlined that proceedings under Chapter IX of the BNSS are preventive and not punitive in nature.
However, the High Court directed the State to provide Bora with all material that would be relied upon during the inquiry. It said the SEM must ensure that principles of natural justice are not violated before ordering her to furnish a bond.
The court also left it to the SEM to decide whether an interim bond was necessary, subject to the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court.
WHY WAS THE NOTICE ISSUED?
On October 16, 2026, Neha Bora was taken into preventive detention by the Delhi Police near Mandi House in New Delhi. This occurred while she was marching with students toward Connaught Place to join the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ (Let the Tricolour Fly) protest. The march was organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) to demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged electoral roll irregularities.
Bora was detained for nearly 12 hours and released the following morning on October 17. Following her release, a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) issued a notice directing Bora to execute a ₹10,000 personal bond with a surety to maintain peace for a year, alleging she instigated people to breach prohibitory orders.
The notice cited alleged sloganeering at Mandi House, repeated protests around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and allegations that Bora instigated people to participate in a protest at Connaught Place on October 16.
NEHA BORA’S PETITION
Bora approached the Delhi High Court to quash the notice, calling it a vague and factually incorrect measure designed to suppress peaceful dissent. The petition challenged the Special Executive Magistrate’s (SEM) preventive notice issued under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Her legal counsel argued before the court that citizens do not require official permission to hoist the national flag.
On October 22, Bora’s counsel explicitly distanced her from the CJP’s separate call at Central Park, noting she was leading her own demonstration at Mandi House. The Delhi High Court reserved its verdict on the plea after hearing arguments for more than two and a half hours.
During the hearing, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Bora, argued that her protest call was peaceful and that she had not called for violence. He also said, “There is nothing wrong in regime change in a democracy.”
The Additional Solicitor General, Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Delhi Police, opposed the plea and pointed to the material collected against Bora. The ASG said there were multiple alleged violations and argued that the six FIRs, General Diary entries and the situation on the streets could not simply be ignored.
The court had also raised questions during the hearing about the safeguards available to a person whose liberty could be affected by preventive proceedings. It observed that when liberty is involved, particularly in preventive proceedings, procedural safeguards become important.
FRIDAY’S HC VERDICT
Justice Subramonium Prasad passed the order on Friday. The court rejected Bora’s writ petition but issued directions to ensure that she receives the material being relied upon by the authorities.
“Writ petition is rejected. However, there are certain directions. All the material to be furnished to her,” the HC said, according to Bar and Bench.
The court said there were “adequate safeguards” and directed the SEM to take care to provide Bora with all the material before passing any order in the inquiry.
The High Court’s order does not itself finally determine whether Bora breached the peace. Instead, it allows the preventive proceedings before the SEM to continue, while directing the magistrate to follow due process and ensure that Bora gets access to the material being relied upon.
The HC also made it clear that the SEM will decide whether an interim bond is necessary, subject to the safeguards applicable to such proceedings.
Quick Answers
Ask News18The Delhi High Court rejected Neha Bora’s petition challenging a preventive police notice and issued specific directions to the magistrate regarding the case.
Ask News18About the Author
Ananya Bhatnagar, Principal Correspondent at CNN-News18, reports on various legal issues and cases in lower courts and the Delhi High Court. He has covered the hanging of the Nirbhaya gang-rape convic…Read More
October 23, 2026, 7:11 PM IST
Read More
Source link
[ad_3]
