After more than two and a half hours of argument on regime change, Justice Subramonium Prasad has reserved his verdict on AISA president Neha Bora’s peace bond challenge. Her counsel said there is “nothing wrong” in it in a democracy; the Additional Solicitor General said change must come through votes.
New Delhi: A plea by All India Students Association (AISA) president Neha Bora against a police notice asking her to furnish a bond to keep the peace turned, at the Delhi High Court on Thursday, October 22, into an argument over regime change: her counsel called it lawful in a democracy, while the Delhi Police maintained that it must come through the ballot [Neha Bora v. State (NCT of Delhi)].
Justice Subramonium Prasad heard the matter for over two and a half hours and reserved the verdict, to be pronounced on Friday at 6 PM. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued for Bora, and Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma for the Delhi Police.
What Bora is challenging
The petition targets an October 17 notice from a Special Executive Magistrate under Sections 126 and 130 read with Section 135(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which asks for a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety to keep the peace pending inquiry. It followed her participation in the “Lehra Do Tiranga” protest on October 16. The notice cites alleged sloganeering at Mandi House, repeated protests near Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS, and alleged instigation of people to join the Connaught Place protest.
Bora’s case is that she called only a peaceful gathering at Mandi House, that she was detained around 5:30 PM on October 16 and held overnight at R.K. Puram police station before release at 6 AM, and that the notice discloses no material showing a likelihood of breach of the peace, which is a precondition under Section 126. She seeks quashing of the notice and a direction against coercive action.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Reserves Verdict On Neha Bora’s Plea Against Police Peace Bond Notice, Order Friday
Two views of regime change, in court
Sankaranarayanan, defending Bora, told the Court:
“There is nothing wrong in regime change in a democracy.”
The ASG drew the Court’s attention to material the police rely on, among it a joint press conference attended by Bora at which a statement on regime change was made. Objecting to the petitioner’s stand, he argued that regime change in a democracy should come through votes, and not through what he described as “lumpen elements in the nerve of New Delhi.”
What Justice Prasad himself made of the exchange was not reported, and no ruling has yet been given.
Where the phrase came from
The phrase has already been the subject of a political row in Delhi. Ahead of protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, a press conference on October 15 was organised with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and student unions. There, Advocate Prashant Bhushan said: “Yes, we all want regime change. What is wrong with that? Regime change is the democratic right of every citizen.” BJP leaders criticised the remarks and called the protesters anarchic.
ALSO READ: Prashant Bhushan Says “We All Want Regime Change” At CJP Event, BJP Calls Protesters Anarchic
Both the police’s allegations against Bora and her account of the events are untested. The High Court has reserved its verdict and has expressed no view on the merits.
Case Title: Neha Bora v. State (NCT of Delhi) (title as described; case number not available)
Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Date of Hearing: October 22, 2026 (verdict reserved, pronouncement October 23, 6 PM)
Appearances: Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan for the petitioner; ASG Chetan Sharma for the Delhi Police
