The Delhi High Court on October 23 rejected All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora’s petition challenging preventive proceedings requiring her to explain why she should not furnish a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during an inquiry. Justice Subramonium Prasad said, “I am rejecting the writ petition at this juncture.” The court, however, directed the authorities to provide Bora with all material relied upon in the proceedings and asked the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) to ensure that principles of natural justice are followed before passing any order requiring a bond.
The proceedings stem from Bora’s preventive detention on October 16 while she was on her way to join the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protest in Delhi. The SEM’s notice was issued on October 17 under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), while the court also directed the SEM to consider the implications of Section 135 before deciding whether a bond should be insisted upon at the initial stage of the inquiry.
Court Finds Sufficient Material
The High Court held that there was sufficient material before the SEM to initiate preventive proceedings and rejected Bora’s argument that the case was based merely on hearsay. The court referred to a kalandara dated October 17 containing three General Diary entries from different police stations relating to different dates and incidents.
It also noted the existence of prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS covering the Mandi House area. The court said it could not simply substitute its own assessment for the SEM’s satisfaction about whether the available material warranted preventive action. It also emphasised that proceedings under the relevant provisions are preventive in nature and do not require the kind of exhaustive fact-finding associated with a criminal trial.
Police Cites Protest Activity
The SEM proceedings relate to allegations that Bora raised slogans at Mandi House on October 16, repeatedly participated in protests around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders and encouraged people to join a demonstration in Connaught Place. Delhi Police defended the proceedings before the High Court, arguing that the notice followed an independent application of mind and was supported by substantial material, including police records and previous FIRs.
The State also relied on the circumstances surrounding the protests and Bora’s alleged conduct. Bora’s lawyers disputed these allegations, maintaining that the October 16 gathering was peaceful and arguing that the notice did not establish a sufficient basis to conclude that she was likely to breach the peace.
Bora Challenges Proceedings
Bora’s petition argued that the notice was vague, factually incorrect and issued mechanically, without adequate material establishing a likelihood of breach of peace. Her legal team also questioned whether she could be required to furnish a bond before the inquiry had properly progressed. Bora had been detained on October 16 while heading towards the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protest and was released on October 17.
During the hearing, her counsel argued that the gathering was peaceful and that seeking political change was legitimate in a democracy. The police, meanwhile, argued that the preventive action was justified by the material available to the SEM and by alleged violations of prohibitory orders.
Natural Justice Remains Key
Although the High Court refused to quash the proceedings, it placed an important procedural safeguard on what happens next. The authorities must provide Bora with the material on which they intend to rely, while the SEM must ensure that she receives a fair opportunity to respond before any order requiring her to furnish a bond is passed.
The court also directed the SEM to consider Section 135 of the BNSS and determine whether a bond should be required at the outset or whether the circumstances warrant such a direction during the course of the inquiry. The preventive proceedings therefore remain open before the SEM, with the High Court leaving Bora free to pursue appropriate legal remedies at a later stage.
The Legal Context
The case highlights the tension between preventive policing and the right to peaceful political expression. Section 126 of the BNSS deals with proceedings where authorities receive information that a person may breach the peace or disturb public tranquillity, while Sections 130 and 135 prescribe procedural steps for such proceedings and inquiries.
The High Court did not hold that Bora was guilty of a criminal offence; rather, it declined to interfere with the SEM’s initiation of preventive proceedings because it found that material existed to support the magistrate’s assessment at this stage.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Maintaining public order and protecting peaceful dissent should not be treated as mutually exclusive goals. Authorities have a legitimate responsibility to prevent violence and disruption, but preventive powers must also be exercised transparently, proportionately and with due regard for individual rights. The High Court’s direction that Bora be given the material relied upon and a meaningful opportunity to respond reinforces the importance of procedural fairness.
A healthy democracy should make room for disagreement, protest and dialogue while ensuring that public safety is protected. How can authorities maintain public peace while ensuring that peaceful dissent remains protected and heard?
Also Read: At Least 4 Killed, Several Injured After Firecracker Factory Explodes In Bihar; Rescue Ops Underway
