One notice can do the work of two: the Delhi High Court has held a composite notice under Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS valid, while making clear that the SEM must hand Neha Bora all the material against her and that a bond is not to be demanded as a matter of course.
New Delhi: AISA president Neha Bora’s writ petition failed on October 23, but not without conditions. The Delhi High Court held that a composite notice under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) stands if it satisfies the requirements of both provisions. It also directed the Special Executive Magistrate to supply Bora all the material relied upon, and cautioned that a bond under Section 135(3) is not to be insisted upon as a matter of course [Neha v. The State NCT of Delhi, W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026].
The ruling was delivered by Justice Subramonium Prasad. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for Bora, and Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma for the State.
A notice, and no separate order
Bora argued that the notice merely reproduced the statute and that a separate written order was also required. The Court looked to the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Farhan Nasir Khan v. State of Maharashtra (2019) and held that the law requires only that the noticee know the information received and the reasons for the Magistrate’s opinion:
“This Court is aligned with the view taken by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the above Judgment, which lays down that there need not be a separate show cause notice under Section 126 and a separate order under Section 130 of the BNSS, if the requirements of both the provisions are met with in a common notice.”
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Rejects Neha Bora’s Peace Bond Plea, Says SEM Must Furnish All Material
The conditions that came with the dismissal
The Court told the State to give Bora “all the material” on which reliance will be placed at the inquiry and on which the notice was issued. The SEM was also directed to ensure that “the principles of natural justice are not violated before passing any order directing furnishing of a bond.”
As for the bond, the Court said:
“The SEM must necessarily keep in mind the import of Section 135 of the BNSS and leaves it open for the SEM to decide on the insistence of a bond at the first instance, as the provision provides for furnishing a bond only if there is an apprehension of breach of peace or disturbance after the commencement and before the completion of the enquiry.”
Any order under Section 135(3), it added, must account for the safeguards set out by the five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr (1970), which the Delhi High Court followed in Aldanish Rein. Madhu Limaye requires some inquiry into the truth of the information before an interim bond is demanded or a person is put in custody for default.
How far a writ court goes at the notice stage
The Court drew on Supreme Court rulings on show-cause notices, among them Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (2004), Union of India v. Vicco Laboratories (2007) and J. Sri Nisha v. Special Director (2026). These hold that writ courts ordinarily should not step in at the notice stage, barring a patent lack of jurisdiction, non-application of mind, abuse of process or a violation of natural justice. On the record, the Court found that the SEM had recorded the kalandra, heard the investigating officer and passed a reasoned order of October 17 before issuing the notice.
Still open to Bora
The notice, the Court said, “meets the requirements of a show cause notice under Chapter IX of the BNSS,” yet it is “always open to the Petitioner to raise a challenge at an appropriate stage,” and she will have several opportunities during the inquiry and after the final order. It also noted that proceedings under Chapter IX allow a discharge under Section 137 if the need for a bond is not proved.
Where the dispute began
Bora is National President of the All India Students Association (AISA). On October 16, she 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.
Special Executive Magistrate Mahesh Kumar Meena then issued the October 17 notice under Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS, which she challenged. It asked 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.
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 made clear 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