Delhi High Court reserves verdict on Neha Bora’s plea against a notice asking her to furnish a Rs 10,000 peace bond, after a hearing of over two hours.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday (October 22) reserved its verdict on a petition by All India Students Association (AISA) national president Neha Bora challenging a notice from a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) that asks her to execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety to “maintain peace during the period of inquiry”. The order will be pronounced on Friday, October 23, at 6 PM [Neha Bora v. Delhi Police].
Justice Subramonium Prasad heard Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Advocate Abhik Chimni for Bora, and Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma for the Delhi Police and the State, who raised objections on maintainability. The matter had been listed on Wednesday, but was adjourned to Thursday after Bora’s counsel sought time.
How the case reached here
Bora was detained on October 16 while attending a gathering at Mandi House. She has alleged that she was taken to an undisclosed location and then to RK Puram police station, where she was held overnight and released around 6 AM the next day. The police have said that she was held under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act. These are the parties’ competing accounts and the Court has made no finding on them.
On October 18 she received the SEM notice under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). As described in the hearing, the notice cites alleged sloganeering at Mandi House, alleged repeated protests around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS, and alleged instigation of people to join a protest at Connaught Place. Bora denies that she incited anyone and says the proceedings are an attempt to curb peaceful dissent in violation of her fundamental rights.
What the petitioner argued
Sankaranarayanan told the Court that the issue is a narrow one about the wording of Sections 126 and 130 BNSS. He submitted that there had been no exhortation to violence, that her social media post on October 16 called only for a meeting at Mandi House, and that she was detained within about 10 to 15 minutes of reaching the spot. He argued that the notice is a “cut and paste” one with no independent opinion of the SEM, that it wrongly attributes to her a call to hoist the national flag without permission, and that the SEM is himself a police officer of the rank of Assistant Commissioner, while the proceeding was initiated on a direction of senior police officers.
He further argued that no bond can be demanded, even an interim one, until the inquiry into its necessity is complete, relying on the seven-judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye and an earlier Delhi High Court ruling, and that Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) are engaged because the only permissible restriction is on the ground of public order. On the call for a change of government attributed to the gathering, he said that “there is nothing wrong with regime change in a democracy”.
The State’s response
ASG Sharma argued that the petition is premature because the notice only asks her to show cause, no bond has yet been taken and she may appear in person or through a lawyer. He said Sections 126 and 130 BNSS operate together, that the SEM’s satisfaction is subjective and preventive, and that the magistrate had before him a daily diary entry, past FIRs and offences and the situation on the streets, and had heard the investigating officer.
The State told the Court that Bora has several FIRs against her and alleged repeated violations of orders. It alleged that she was part of a gathering with leaders of the Cockroach Janta Party and advocate Prashant Bhushan where, according to the State, it was said that the fight was for a change of regime. In reply to the submission on regime change, the ASG said that change of government must come through votes and not through the congregation of what he called lumpen elements in the capital.
The State also said that the order under Section 163 BNSS was in force and that Bora ran towards Connaught Place when stopped. These are the State’s contentions, which the petitioner disputes, and none has been tested.
What the Court asked
Justice Prasad asked whether it would be more prudent to let the Section 135 inquiry run its course, observed that the scope for interference with the magistrate’s subjective satisfaction is narrow, and asked how the first proviso to Section 135 applies at the present stage. He also asked whether the SEM had any material beyond the daily diary report and whether an independent check of the information is needed before a notice issues, and recorded the State’s assurance that all documents placed before the Court will be handed to Bora.
Noting that a bond of good behaviour pending inquiry carries a stigma that has a facet in Article 21, the judge asked how that sits with a person who has not yet been found to have done anything wrong. When the exchange turned to regime change, the Court asked whether it needed to go into that.
The next date before the SEM is Saturday. At one stage the judge told the State that he needed time to write the judgment and asked it to hold its hand until Tuesday. The hearing ended with the Court saying that the order would be pronounced at 6 PM on Friday.
The legal position
Section 126 BNSS lets an Executive Magistrate who receives information that a person is likely to breach the peace or disturb public tranquillity call on that person to show cause why a bond to keep the peace should not be taken. The power is preventive, and it is not a finding that any offence has been committed. Section 130 deals with the order to show cause and Section 135 with the inquiry and the interim bond.
How those provisions interact, and whether a bond can be required before the inquiry ends, is the question the Court has to answer. The Court has expressed no view on the merits so far, and Bora is not accused of any proven wrongdoing.
Why the order matters
The order will say how far a High Court will test a magistrate’s preventive notice before the inquiry is complete, and where the line falls between preventive powers and the rights to protest and to liberty. It arises against the backdrop of protests over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and the demand for the Chief Election Commissioner’s removal, on which the protesters and the authorities hold opposing views. The verdict will bind only the parties before the Court and will be reported when pronounced.
Case Title: Neha Bora v. Delhi Police (petition number not available at the time of writing)
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad, Delhi High Court
Date of hearing: October 22, 2026; order to be pronounced October 23, 2026, 6 PM
Appearances: Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Advocate Abhik Chimni for the petitioner; Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma for the Delhi Police and the State