Delhi High Court to Review AISA President Neha Bora's Challenge Against Police Notice

Court Hearing Scheduled for Neha Bora's Plea

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court announced it will consider the plea from Neha Bora, the President of the All India Students' Association (AISA), regarding a notice from the Delhi Police that requires her to sign a 'peace' bond before a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM).

Bora has been actively protesting against alleged discrepancies in the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and is seeking to have the notice annulled, along with a request for the police to refrain from any coercive measures against her.

Justice Subramonium Prasad postponed the hearing at the request of Bora's legal representative.

This case was brought to the court's attention after Bora requested an urgent hearing, coinciding with the court's closure for the Dussehra holiday.

The notice, issued on October 17 under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), mandated that Bora appear before the SEM on October 19 to explain why she should not be required to post a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with a surety to maintain peace during the inquiry.

Section 126 grants the SEM the authority to enforce such bonds if there is credible evidence suggesting that an individual may disrupt public order or engage in actions that could lead to disturbances.

Bora was detained on October 16 while heading to participate in the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP)'s 'Lehra Do Tiranga' march but was released the following day.

In her petition, prepared by attorney Abhik Chimni, Bora contends that the police notice is ambiguous, factually incorrect, and lacks sufficient evidence to justify the claim of a potential breach of peace.

The notice fails to specify any 'period, occasion, or event' related to the anticipated breach, the petition argues, claiming that the actions taken are an improper use of preventive powers aimed at stifling peaceful dissent, violating Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), and 21 of the Constitution.

The SEM proceedings are based on accusations of sloganeering at Mandi House on October 16, ongoing protests near Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and inciting individuals to join a protest in Connaught Place on the same day.

"The contested notice is based on a fundamentally incorrect assertion that the petitioner incited participation in the demonstration at Central Park, Connaught Place on October 16, 2026. The petitioner's call and the alleged incident were distinct. She had organized a peaceful gathering at Mandi House at 5:00 PM on that day, and records show she was detained from Mandi House," the petition states.

"Furthermore, the notice's claim of violating 'prohibitory orders 163 BNSS' does not specify any particular order or incident. In fact, the only order on record dated August 23, 2026, does not apply to Mandi House and exempts Jantar Mantar Road," it added.