AISA President Neha Bora Refuses to Sign Peace Bond

Delhi High Court upholds magistrate's notice

The Delhi High Court rejected the petition by Neha Bora challenging the notice to sign a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety.

The court ruled that the notice issued by a Special Executive Magistrate was based on case diary entries from different police stations and events rather than hearsay.

The court stated that the principles laid down in the Supreme Court's 1970 Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr judgment had not been violated at this stage of the proceedings. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr judgment had not been violated at this stage.

The court directed the state to provide all materials relied upon to Bora when she appears before the magistrate.

It also directed the magistrate to keep in mind the import of Section 135 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and safeguards from the Madhu Limaye judgment when deciding on the insistence of a bond.

Legal basis for the peace bond proceedings

The notice issued on October 17 by the special executive magistrate directed Neha Bora to furnish a personal bond of ₹10,000 with a surety to maintain peace. This notice invoked Section 126 and Section 130, read with Section 135(3), of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

The court held that proceedings under Chapter IX of the BNSS are based on the subjective satisfaction of the special executive magistrate. Even a single incident is sufficient to initiate these proceedings if there is an apprehension of a further breach of peace, the court observed.

The court stated that the magistrate is not required to investigate like a fact-finding authority when forming an opinion regarding the apprehension of a breach of peace under Chapter IX. The court noted that the magistrate had examined information including three general diary entries, a kalandara dated October 17, and three witnesses. These materials satisfied the requirements under Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS, according to the court.

Allegations of protest and prohibitory orders

The notice alleged that Bora shouted slogans at Mandi House and repeatedly protested near Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS. It further claimed that she instigated people to participate in a protest at Connaught Place.

Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that a prohibitory order was issued on August 24, 2026, under Section 163 of the BNSS by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sub-Division, Barakhamba Road. This order covered the jurisdiction of the Barakhamba Road and Tilak Marg police stations, including the Mandi House area. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the Mandi House area, where she was protesting, was not covered under this prohibitory order.

Background of detention and ongoing protests

Neha Bora was detained on October 16 while participating in a flash protest near Barakhamba Road. The protest demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Following her detention, she was taken to an undisclosed location and then to the RK Puram Police Station. She was held overnight and released at 6 am the following day.

Protests against Gyanesh Kumar have been held in Delhi and other parts of the country since October 2. These protests stem from concerns about the functioning of the Election Commission and its handling of the special intensive revision of electoral rolls. In her petition against the notice, Bora argued that no material had been disclosed to establish a likelihood of a breach of peace, nor was any specific event or period identified during which such a breach was apprehended.