Was Mandi House outside the prohibitory orders in central Delhi? No, said the Delhi High Court: a Section 163 BNSS order of August 24 reached it, and six FIRs with three general diary entries gave the Special Executive Magistrate enough to act against Neha Bora.
New Delhi: AISA president Neha Bora had argued that Mandi House lay outside the prohibitory orders in force in central Delhi. The Delhi High Court on October 23 did not accept that. It found that a Section 163 BNSS order dated August 24, 2026 covered the area, and that the SEM had sufficient material, six FIRs and three general diary entries among it, to issue her a show-cause notice to keep the peace [Neha v. The State NCT of Delhi, W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026].
Bora’s writ petition was dismissed by Justice Subramonium Prasad. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued for her, and Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma for the State.
Two orders, and the one that mattered
For Bora, her counsel pointed to an ACP order of August 23, 2026 to argue that Mandi House fell outside the area under prohibitory orders, so no restriction applied to a protest there. In reply, the ASG produced a separate order of August 24, 2026 from the ACP, Sub-Division Barakhamba Road, covering the whole jurisdiction of the Barakhamba Road and Tilak Marg police stations. The Court agreed with the State:
“A prohibitory order dated 24.08.2026 was issued Section 163 of the BNSS by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sub-Division, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, covering the entire jurisdiction of the Police Station Barakhamba Road and Tilak Marg falling within Sub-Division of Barakhamba Road, which also covers the Mandi House area. As such, this argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be accepted.”
What the SEM had in front of him
Besides the kalandra, the SEM had three general diary entries before him: GD No. 19A and 20A of October 17 at Barakhamba Road police station, and GD No. 111A of September 25 at Parliament Street police station. Details of FIRs against Bora were also on the record. The Court observed:
“A perusal of the material on record shows that there are as many as six (06) FIRs, apart from the information under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act, which finds mention of the Petitioner. These FIRs have been registered in Police Stations Parliament Street, Barakhamba Road and Connaught Place.”
The SEM, the Court noted, had examined the three witnesses named in the kalandra, which in its view met the requirements of Sections 126 and 130. The case, it said, was “not based merely on hearsay material.” The State also handed over videos, but the Court said it was not referring to them because it was “not clear” whether they had been placed before the SEM.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Rejects Neha Bora’s Peace Bond Plea, Says SEM Must Furnish All Material
The kalandra, as the police tell it
According to the police kalandra of October 17, Bora arrived at the Mandi House roundabout around 5:10 PM on October 16 with some 40 to 50 protesters and began moving towards Barakhamba Road, shouting slogans such as “Reclaim Jantar Mantar” and “Gyanesh Kumar, resign”. The group, it says, was told repeatedly over a loudspeaker that Section 163 was in force and asked to disperse. The kalandra also refers to her call to gather at Connaught Place on October 16, earlier detentions under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act, and the commercial character of Connaught Place. Each of these is the police’s allegation.
Precedents that did not fit
The Court distinguished the Orissa High Court’s decision in Sumitra Dhal v. State of Odisha, since the notice there disclosed no substance of the information. The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Anuj Suhag was treated the same way because it involved a single incident, whereas Bora’s matter, the Court noted, involved “a number of General Diary entries, a number of FIRs alongside the prevalent prohibitory orders.” Asha Pant and the remaining judgments Bora cited were likewise held distinguishable.
The notice and the protests behind it
Bora is National President of the All India Students Association (AISA). What she took to the High Court was an October 17 notice from Special Executive Magistrate Mahesh Kumar Meena under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), asking 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.
The day before, 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 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: Delhi High Court Reserves Verdict On Neha Bora’s Plea Against Police Peace Bond Notice, Order Friday
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