All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora has refused to sign a peace bond of ₹10,000 with one surety sought by Delhi Police, arguing that it undermines fundamental rights, including the right to protest and express democratic dissent.
The notice, issued under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), requires her to show cause why she should not furnish the bond to maintain peace during an inquiry. On October 23, the Delhi High Court rejected her plea challenging the notice but directed the authorities to provide her with the relevant material and ensure procedural fairness before requiring her to furnish the bond.
Bora was detained on October 16 while heading to the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march in Connaught Place. She has said she will participate in the proceedings before the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) but will not accept restrictions that, in her view, silence dissent.
Bond And Allegations
The notice issued by the SEM on October 17 directed Bora to appear on October 19 and explain why she should not execute a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during the inquiry. A personal bond is a legal undertaking by an individual to comply with specified conditions, while a surety is another person who provides an assurance in support of that undertaking.
According to reports, the notice cited three grounds for initiating proceedings against Bora: alleged sloganeering at Mandi House on October 16, participation in repeated protests near Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and the allegation that she instigated people to participate in the October 16 demonstration in Connaught Place. These are allegations cited in the notice and should not be treated as established findings of wrongdoing.
The proceedings were initiated under Section 126 of the BNSS, which allows an Executive Magistrate to seek a bond for keeping the peace when there is sufficient ground to apprehend a breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity. Section 130 sets out requirements for the written notice explaining the grounds and the proposed bond. Such proceedings are preventive in nature and do not, by themselves, establish criminal guilt.
Court And Police Stand
On October 23, the Delhi High Court rejected Bora’s petition challenging the notice. However, the court directed the State to provide her with all the material on which the authorities intended to rely during the inquiry. It also instructed the SEM to ensure that the principles of natural justice were followed before passing any order requiring her to furnish the bond.
The court observed that the notice was not based solely on hearsay, referring to a police report dated October 17 containing three general diary entries from different police stations relating to separate events. It also considered the existence of prohibitory orders covering the Mandi House area. The Delhi Police, represented by its lawyers, argued that the notice followed an independent assessment and was supported by material available to the authorities.
The court’s decision to reject Bora’s challenge did not mean that she had been found guilty of an offence. Nor did it automatically settle whether she would ultimately be required to furnish the bond. The SEM must consider the material and follow the applicable legal procedure before making a decision. Bora has maintained that she will participate in the proceedings while opposing what she considers an infringement of her democratic rights.
Her detention on October 16, while she was on her way to the CJP’s ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march, brought the issue into focus. The case raises questions about how preventive powers are used when demonstrations are planned and how authorities can address concerns about public order without unnecessarily restricting peaceful political expression.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Maintaining public order and protecting the right to peaceful protest are both important in a democracy. Preventive measures must be supported by clear grounds, applied proportionately and accompanied by fair procedures. How can authorities safeguard public peace while ensuring citizens can express dissent without fear?
Also Read: Delhi HC Rejects AISA Chief Neha Bora’s Challenge To Peace Bond Notice Amid Anti-CEC Protest
