Can a writ court second-guess a peace bond notice? Not by sitting on the arm-chair of the SEM, the Delhi High Court has said, explaining how little it will examine when AISA president Neha Bora challenged the notice issued to her.
New Delhi: Two questions only: was there any material before the SEM, and did he apply his mind to it? That, the Delhi High Court said on October 23, is the limit of what a writ court asks when a show-cause notice under Chapter IX of the BNSS is challenged. Dismissing AISA president Neha Bora’s petition against a notice requiring her to furnish a bond to keep the peace, the Court said it will not sit on the arm-chair of the SEM and will not interfere unless there is “nil material, which would shock the conscience of the Court” [Neha v. The State NCT of Delhi, W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026].
The writ petition was dismissed by Justice Subramonium Prasad. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for Bora, and Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma for the State.
The limit of a writ court’s inquiry
Here is how the Court described the scope of its review at the notice stage:
“At the stage where only a notice has been issued, enquiry of the Writ Court will be only be limited to examine as to whether there was any material/information before the SEM at all and whether the SEM applied its mind on such material/information received by him, for proceeding under Chapter IX of the BNSS. The Court, at this stage, does not sit on the arm-chair of the SEM to decide as to whether the material/information is sufficient or not and unless it is a case of nil material, which would shock the conscience of the Court, the Writ Court at the stage of issuance of a show cause notice, will not interfere.”
Later in the judgment, the Court returned to the same point, saying it “cannot sit in the arm-chair of the SEM to test the subjective satisfaction of the sufficiency of material.”
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Rejects Neha Bora’s Peace Bond Plea, Says SEM Must Furnish All Material
Preventive, not punitive
The Court started from the purpose of Chapter IX, which it described as follows:
“Since the purport of Chapter IX of the BNSS is preventive in nature and not punitive, the object of the provisions is to prevent breach of peace and take such preventive steps to ensure that peace and tranquillity in the area is not disturbed. As such, the aim is not to take action after an incident has happened, but to prevent such an incident from happening.”
One incident can be enough
Bora’s argument was that a notice cannot be founded on a kalandra alone. The Court did not accept it, observing that proceedings are initiated “not on the number of incidents, but the nature of the act and the attendant circumstances.” It went on:
“Even one incident is sufficient for initiating proceedings under Chapter IX of the BNSS, if the circumstances so suggest that there is an apprehension that such a person will indulge in further incidents of the same nature which can breach peace and disturb public tranquillity.”
What a notice must contain
As to the notice itself, the scheme of Chapter IX, the Court held, “does not require the show cause notice to read like a judgment, but merely set out the substance of the information received by the SEM and the opinion formed thereof.” Nor does the SEM have to “investigate like a fact-finding authority” before forming an opinion.
A stricter eye where liberty is involved
The Court added that “in any matter where the liberty of an individual is involved, the Writ Courts are stricter and more careful than in a case of domestic enquiry,” and asked the SEM to bear in mind the safeguards the Supreme Court laid down in Madhu Limaye.
The notice of October 17
Bora is National President of the All India Students Association (AISA). The notice she challenged, dated October 17, was issued by Special Executive Magistrate Mahesh Kumar Meena under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). It called on her to show cause why she should not execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety under Section 135(3) for keeping the peace during the inquiry.
On October 16, she had posted on Instagram inviting people to Mandi House at 5 PM, saying, “Jantar Mantar is not a site that you can denotify, it’s a symbol of our resistance!” She was detained at Mandi House around 5:30 PM that day and released the next day. The protests in Delhi concerned the functioning of the Election Commission of India and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
ALSO READ: “Nothing Wrong In Regime Change”: Neha Bora To Delhi HC; ASG Says Only Through Votes
The police allegations against Bora remain untested. The High Court clarified that its observations go only to the scope of interference under Article 226 at the show-cause stage, and the SEM is to apply his own mind before deciding on any bond.
Case Title: Neha v. The State NCT of Delhi
Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026 & CRL.M.A. 33383/2026
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Date of Judgment: October 23, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan with Advocates Abhik Chimni, Pranjal Abrol and others for the petitioner; ASG Chetan Sharma with CGSC Ashish K. Dixit and others for the State; Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai and others for the intervenor