The Delhi High Court said a writ court does not sit on the arm-chair of the SEM and will interfere with a peace bond show-cause notice only in a case of nil material, dismissing Neha Bora’s plea.
The Delhi High Court found that a Section 163 BNSS order of August 24 covered Mandi House and that six FIRs, three GD entries and the kalandra gave the SEM sufficient material to issue Neha Bora a notice.
The Delhi High Court held a composite Section 126-130 BNSS notice valid, directed the SEM to give Neha Bora all material relied on, and said a bond under Section 135 is not to be insisted on as a matter of course.
Neha Bora’s peace bond plea has been rejected by the Delhi High Court, which directed that all material be furnished to her and asked the Special Executive Magistrate to consider the import of Section 135 BNSS. New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday (October 23) dismissed a writ petition by All India Students Association […]
A review that sought to re-argue the case has failed, and Cash In Lieu Of School Uniforms for children admitted under the Economically Weaker Section and Disadvantaged Group categories in Delhi’s private schools stands, the Delhi High Court has held. New Delhi: No error apparent on the face of the record was shown, the Delhi […]
The Delhi High Court has held that cash in lieu of school uniforms for students admitted under the EWS and DG categories stands, dismissing a review petition against its January 2026 judgment that accepted the Delhi Government’s policy. New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a review petition filed by the NGO Justice For […]
Arguing AISA president Neha Bora’s challenge to a peace bond notice, Gopal Sankaranarayanan told the Delhi High Court there is nothing wrong in regime change in a democracy; ASG Chetan Sharma said regime change must come through votes.
Justice Subramonium Prasad said the BNSS provides a procedure for breach of a peace bond, including forfeiture, and asked whether stricter conditions were justified after an alleged second breach by CJP leaders.
Justice Subramonium Prasad asked why CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka invoked Article 226 against their custody when revision was available under the BNSS, distinguishing maintainability from entertainability.
Told that CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka were 27 and 31, Justice Subramonium Prasad said they were “not Gen Z” and observed that the cause had changed while the people remained the same.
