The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its order on a petition filed by All India Students Association (AISA) president Neha Bora challenging a police-related notice that requires her to furnish a personal bond of Rs 10,000 and undertake to maintain peace. Bora has denied involvement in the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) protest call, while the Centre has defended the preventive proceedings against her.

Bora’s petition challenges an order issued by a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). She received the notice on October 18, following her release from preventive detention on October 17. She was detained on October 16 while marching towards Mandi House to participate in the CJP’s ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protest.

During Thursday’s hearing, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Bora, argued that she had neither committed an offence nor engaged in conduct that could reasonably be considered a threat to public peace.

The petition maintains that the notice is vague and factually incorrect, and that there is no sufficient material to establish that Bora was likely to disturb public tranquillity. It also alleges that preventive powers were being used to curb peaceful dissent and violate her constitutional rights.

Defence Says Social Media Posts Did Not Call for Violence

Sankaranarayanan told the court that Bora was detained barely 10 to 15 minutes after reaching Mandi House on the evening of October 16. Referring to a social media post announcing a gathering at 5 pm, he said the message simply stated, “see you today at 5 PM” and contained no call for violence or any offence.

The lawyer also referred to a press conference held on October 15 and a social media post published the following day, arguing that Bora’s public statements and activities had remained peaceful. He said she was an active public figure and the president of AISA, and had participated in previous protests without facing objections from authorities.

The defence further submitted that the wider protest movement had not involved violence and that Bora’s remarks had focused on reform.

Addressing the issue of political change, Sankaranarayanan argued that advocating a change of government was legitimate in a democracy. The Centre countered that governments could be changed through elections, not through the actions of what it described as “lumpen elements in the nerve of Delhi”.

Centre Cites Repeated Violations of Restrictions

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, representing the Centre and Delhi Police, told the court that Bora had allegedly committed violations on multiple occasions. According to a report by Live Law, Sharma referred to what he described as “complete violations, one after another, 12 times”.

The ASG maintained that the SEM had considered the material twice before issuing the notice and had cross-checked information supplied by the investigating officer. He argued that the proceedings were supported by substantial material.

Sharma also disputed Bora’s contention that she had distanced herself from CJP and was acting independently during the march towards Connaught Place. He said prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS were in force in Connaught Place and surrounding areas, and that a barricade displayed a notice about the restrictions.

According to the Centre, Bora moved past police personnel and ran towards the route leading from Mandi House to Connaught Place.

The defence, however, pointed out that Jantar Mantar was an exempted area where processions could be held, unlike Mandi House and other locations. The notice against Bora cited repeated protests near Jantar Mantar, which has been de-notified as a protest site, and alleged that she had encouraged people to proceed towards Connaught Place despite prohibitory orders.

Court Flags Personal Liberty Concerns

During the hearing, the court drew attention to the implications of proceedings that effectively label a person a “bad boy” and require them to behave as a “good boy”. It observed that the matter raised concerns linked to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Bora’s petition also invokes Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), which protect freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peacefully without arms. It argues that the notice was issued without adequate grounds to establish a likelihood of breach of peace.

Section 126 of the BNSS empowers an executive magistrate to require a person to execute a bond for keeping the peace when credible information indicates that the person may disturb public tranquillity or commit an act likely to cause such a disturbance.

The proceedings against Bora arose from allegations that she raised slogans at Mandi House, repeatedly protested near Jantar Mantar despite restrictions and encouraged people to join the October 16 gathering at Connaught Place.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Delhi High Court reserved its order for Friday.