Delhi HC Rejects AISA Leader Neha Bora's Plea Against ₹10,000 Peace Bond
The Delhi High Court rejected AISA leader Neha Bora's petition against a ₹10,000 peace bond notice but ordered the magistrate to share all evidence.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by AISA leader Neha Bora, who was challenging a notice issued by a Special Executive Magistrate. The notice required her to execute a bond of ₹10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during an ongoing inquiry.
While Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the petition, he issued a critical directive to the magistrate, ensuring that all material and evidence relied upon during the proceedings must be furnished to Bora to ensure a fair process.
The Legal Battle Over Preventive Action
Neha Bora had approached the court to challenge the legality of the preventive proceedings initiated against her under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Her legal team questioned whether the authorities had followed the correct procedure and whether the notice was issued with a proper application of mind.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Bora, argued that the notice contained disputed assertions. He highlighted that Bora, as an AISA leader, had called for a gathering at Mandi House on October 16 after Jantar Mantar was denotified as a protest site. The defense maintained that this was a call for a peaceful assembly and not an incitement to violence or any criminal offense.
Disputed Claims and Factual Errors
The petitioner's counsel raised several points to contest the magistrate's notice:
- Location of Protests: The defense disputed claims that Bora had organized a gathering at Connaught Place, stating that the demonstration there was conducted by a different group.
- The National Flag: Sankaranarayanan questioned the factual basis of the allegation that Bora intended to hoist the national flag without the necessary permissions.
- Lack of Independent Assessment: It was argued that the Special Executive Magistrate simply reproduced allegations without conducting an independent evaluation of the facts.
The Court's Observation on Stigma
During the proceedings, the court touched upon the psychological and social impact of preventive actions. Justice Prasad noted that such proceedings can leave an individual feeling branded as a troublemaker.
“The concern of the petitioner is that I am already branded as a bad boy and asked to say ‘you shall be a good boy’,”the judge observed, noting that the matter touched upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Government's Stance
Opposing the plea, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, supported by Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish Dixit, challenged the maintainability of the petition. The ASG defended the preventive measures, citing a history of legal issues involving the petitioner.
The prosecution highlighted the following points to justify the bond:
- Criminal Record: The ASG referred to six existing FIRs against Neha Bora, alleging repeated violations of the law.
- Prohibitory Orders: The State argued that a prohibitory order under Section 163 of the BNSS was in effect in the area at the time of the incidents.
- Threat to Peace: The government claimed they possessed sufficient material to believe a breach of peace was possible, mentioning statements regarding "regime change" and insisting that political transitions should occur only through the electoral process.
Ultimately, the court decided not to interfere with the inquiry under Section 135 of the BNSS at this stage, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition, while still mandating the disclosure of all evidence to the petitioner.