New Delhi: All India Students' Association (AISA) President Neha Bora on Monday moved the Delhi High Court against a police notice asking her to execute a peace bond before a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM).
The petition challenges the notice directing her to show cause as to why she should not execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during an inquiry.
Bora, who has been at the forefront of recent protests against the alleged irregularities in the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, is likely to seek an urgent hearing in the High Court, which is shut this week for Dusshera vacations.
Her petition seeks quashing of the notice and directions to the police not to take any coercive action against her.
Bora was taken into preventive detention on October 16 when she was on her way to participate in Cockroach Janata Party (CJP)'s 'Lehra Do Tiranga' march. She was released on October 17.
The notice, issued on October 17 under section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), asked the student leader to appear before the SEM on October 19 and show cause why she should not execute a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety "for keeping peace for a period of enquiry".
Section 126 empowers the SEM to require a person to execute a bond for keeping the peace if there is credible information that he/she is likely to commit a breach of peace, disturb public tranquillity, or do a wrongful act that may cause such a disturbance.
In her petition, settled by lawyer Abhik Chimni, Bora said the police notice is vague, factually incorrect and contains no material or information to substantiate the "likelihood" of breach of peace.
It does not disclose a "period, occasion or event in relation to which breach is apprehended", the plea argued, as it asserted that the proceedings are a colourable exercise of preventive powers to suppress peaceful dissent, in violation of Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 21 of the Constitution.
The petition informed that the proceedings before the SEM are based on the alleged incidents of sloganeering at Mandi House on October 16, repeated protests around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under section 163 of BNSS, and instigating people to participate in a protest in Connaught Place on October 16.
"The Impugned Notice rests on a prima facie incorrect fact, namely that the Petitioner instigated people to participate in the demonstration at Central Park, Connaught Place on 16.10.2026. The Petitioner's call and the incident alleged were different. The Petitioner called for a peaceful gathering at Mandi House at 5:00 PM on 16.10.2026, and it is a matter of record that she was detained from Mandi House," the petition said.
The petition further contends that the authorities have not supplied the underlying order and material relied upon to initiate the proceedings, thereby preventing her from effectively responding to the allegations.
It also questions the reliance on prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, arguing that the notice does not identify the specific order or incident allegedly violated.
The plea states that an order dated August 23, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sub-Division Parliament Street, did not cover Mandi House and exempted Jantar Mantar Road.
"That the alleged disregard of 'prohibitory orders 163 BNSS' in the Notice does not identify any specific prohibitory order and incident. In fact the only order on record dated 23.08.2026 does not extend to Mandi House and exempts Jantar Mantar Road," it added.
The August 23 order prohibited meetings, slogans, speeches and assemblies of five or more people across the sub-division for 60 days, until October 21, subject to the specified exemption.
Bora has argued that preventive proceedings cannot be initiated merely on the basis of participation in or a call for a peaceful protest, and that the authorities must demonstrate a proximate likelihood of a breach of peace.
(With inputs from PTI & ANI)