All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora appeared before the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) at Delhi’s Mandir Marg Police Station on Saturday, October 24, a day after the Delhi High Court dismissed her challenge to a show-cause notice seeking a ₹10,000 personal bond and one surety to maintain peace during an ongoing inquiry. The notice was issued on October 17, following Bora’s detention on October 16 while she was on her way to join the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march in Delhi.
The High Court did not order Bora to furnish the bond at this stage. Instead, it directed the authorities to provide her with all material relied upon against her and asked the SEM to follow principles of natural justice before deciding whether a bond should be imposed. On Saturday, the SEM provided the relevant documents to Bora’s legal team. Her lawyer, Abhik Chimni, said they would examine the material before the next hearing on October 29.
Documents Now Shared
Chimni said the SEM’s decision to provide the relied-upon material followed the directions issued by the High Court. “The high court has dismissed the challenge to the show-cause notice. However, it has laid down important parameters, stating that all material relied upon to suggest a possible breach of peace must be provided to us,” he said.
The disclosure is significant because Bora’s legal team had argued before the High Court that they had not initially been given the material on which the police and SEM had based their apprehension of a possible breach of peace. The High Court, while rejecting the challenge at the show-cause stage, stressed that Bora must have an opportunity to examine the material and respond before any final decision requiring her to furnish a bond.
What The Court Found
In its 46-page order, the High Court said the SEM had sufficient material to issue the show-cause notice and rejected the argument that the proceedings were based merely on hearsay. The court noted that the SEM had considered three General Diary entries, a kalandara dated October 17 and statements from three witnesses before initiating proceedings under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
It also observed that proceedings under Chapter IX of the BNSS are preventive rather than punitive and that the SEM was not required to conduct an exhaustive fact-finding exercise at the stage of forming an opinion about a possible breach of peace. At the same time, the court made clear that the bond was not automatic.
It asked the SEM to keep Section 135 of the BNSS and safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v Sub-Divisional Magistrate in mind before deciding whether a bond should be insisted upon during the inquiry.
Why The Notice Was Issued
The proceedings stem from Bora’s detention on October 16, when she was on her way to join the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ protest in Connaught Place. The October 17 notice cited allegations including sloganeering at Mandi House, repeated protests in the vicinity of Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and allegedly encouraging people to participate in a protest at Connaught Place.
These are allegations contained in the proceedings and should not be treated as established findings against Bora. The High Court noted that a prohibitory order issued under Section 163 covered the Mandi House area and held that there was sufficient material for the SEM to initiate preventive proceedings at the show-cause stage.
Bora’s Challenge
Bora’s legal team had argued that the notice was issued mechanically and that the authorities had not supplied the material necessary for her to effectively respond. The Delhi Police, represented by Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and standing counsel Ashish Dixit, argued that the notice followed an independent application of mind and was supported by substantial material.
The High Court ultimately declined to quash the notice but preserved Bora’s opportunity to challenge the proceedings at appropriate stages. It also made clear that the SEM must apply his own mind to the material before deciding whether Bora should ultimately furnish a personal bond or bail bond.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The Neha Bora case underlines the difficult balance between maintaining public order and protecting the democratic right to peaceful dissent. Authorities have a legitimate responsibility to prevent violence and disruption, but preventive powers must be exercised transparently, proportionately and with adequate safeguards. Equally, protesters have a responsibility to ensure that dissent remains peaceful and does not put others at risk.
The High Court’s direction that Bora be given the material relied upon, while leaving the final decision on the bond to the SEM after due process, reinforces the importance of accountability on both sides. In a democracy, how can we ensure that public order is protected without allowing legitimate peaceful dissent to be silenced?
Also Read: ‘Free Kashmir’ Slogan Row At Jamia Millia Islamia As University Moves Classes Online Amid Protests
