Delhi HC rejects AISA leader Neha Bora's plea against peace bond

Court mandates disclosure of materials for inquiry

Justice Subramonium Prasad, while pronouncing the order, stated there were adequate safeguards in place regarding the inquiry. The court directed the special executive magistrate to provide all relevant materials to Bora before passing any order regarding the conduct of the inquiry.

In a separate matter, B Vinay Reddy has filed a plea before the Telangana High Court alleging the state government failed to make over 1.16 lakh Government Orders public since June 2014. The petition claims that while the government informed the Legislative Assembly in March 2025 that 1,99,115 orders had been issued, only 82,657 were available in the public domain. A response to an RTI application from November 2025 showed that only 3,290 of the 19,064 orders issued between December 7, 2023 and January 26, 2025 were accessible to the public.

This plea is currently pending before Justice Surepalli Nanda. The petition alleges that government departments classify orders as public or internal on the Government Order Issue Register portal and withhold them without citing specific sections of the RTI Act. The filing refers to two previous High Court orders from March 2022 and December 2025 that directed the state to upload unpublished orders within eight weeks. A contempt of court case concerning non-compliance with these previous directives is also pending.

The petitioner seeks directions for the state to publish all orders issued since June 2014, excluding those withheld for legally valid reasons. The request includes disclosure of department-wise figures, deadlines for future uploads, and the appointment of responsible officers. The plea also challenges delays in responding to an RTI application filed by Reddy on January 17, 2026, which requested details on why orders were not published.

The petition alleges that the Telangana Information Commission took up a complaint filed on February 22 only on July 15. The commission heard the matter three times without reaching a decision and adjourned the case on October 13 without setting a new date. The petition claims the commission failed to provide hearing records or facilitate video-conference participation, stating that a body created to enforce transparency cannot withhold records from a party.

The petitioner is seeking directions to provide the requested RTI information free of cost within two weeks. The plea also requests that the commission decide the pending complaint within four weeks and implement hybrid hearings with at least seven days of advance notice. The petitioner asks for the uploading of all hearing records within three days.

Bora challenged notice under BNSS provisions

Neha Bora challenged an October 17 notice issued by a Special Executive Magistrate under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, read with Section 135(3) of the same code. These provisions allow a magistrate to require a person to show cause why they should not be asked to furnish a bond to maintain public peace.

Under Section 135(3) of the BNSS, a magistrate may direct a person to execute a bond or bail bond for keeping the peace until the conclusion of an inquiry and may detain them in custody until such a bond is executed. Bora sought the quashing of the notice and the proceedings arising from it. The petition also requested a direction to restrain authorities from taking coercive action against her.

Counsel argues protest was peaceful and notice mechanical

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Bora, argued that her October 16 protest call was peaceful and that she never called for violence. He asserted that seeking regime change in a democracy is not wrong.

Sankaranarayanan argued the notice was mechanical, asserting that a preliminary enquiry is essential before inviting a response regarding an interim bond. The petition contended that the notice failed to disclose any material establishing a likelihood of breach of peace, which is a necessary precondition for initiating preventive proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS. Bora argued that no material had been disclosed that could establish a likelihood of a breach of peace or identify a specific event or period during which such a breach was apprehended.

State defends notice citing subjective satisfaction

Additional Solicitor General Sharma argued that Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita provides a wide band of subjective satisfaction for magistrates. He told the court that this authority does not require translation into evidence or fact.

The magistrate's decision should instead reflect the information received by them, Livelaw reported on October 23.

Allegations behind the peace bond notice

The notice issued to Neha Bora on October 18 cited several specific allegations regarding her conduct during recent protests. According to Livelaw and Scroll, the magistrate noted alleged sloganeering at Mandi House.

The notice also cited repeated protests around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The magistrate alleged that Bora instigated people to participate in a protest at Connaught Place on October 16.

Timeline of detention and protest context

Protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar have occurred in Delhi and other parts of India since October 2. These demonstrations concern the functioning of the Election Commission and its handling of the special intensive revision of electoral rolls, Scroll reported.

Neha Bora, the president of the All India Students’ Association, participated in a flash protest near Barakhamba Road on October 16. She demanded the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner during this event.

Bora stated that she had called for a peaceful gathering at Mandi House at 5 p.m. to unfurl the national flag at Central Park. According to Livelaw and Scroll, she was detained at approximately 5:30 p.m. on October 16.

Bora alleged that officers took her to an undisclosed location before transferring her to the R.K. Puram Police Station. She remained in custody overnight and police released her at 6 a.m. on October 17.

On October 17, a special executive magistrate directed Bora to furnish a personal bond of ₹10,000 with a surety to maintain peace during the period of inquiry. The plea filed by the student leader mentioned that 1,16,458 government orders, or roughly 58.5 per cent, are not publicly accessible.