Saurabh Mukherjee
The Delhi High Court on Friday (October 23) refused to entertain a petition filed by All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora against a Delhi Police notice requiring her to furnish a personal bond of Rs 10,000 and one surety.
The notice, issued following her participation in the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march on October 16, asked her to “maintain peace during an inquiry”.
Justice Subramonium Prasad, while pronouncing the order, said, "I am rejecting the writ petition at this juncture."
The court, however, directed the special executive magistrate (SEM) to ensure that Bora received all material relevant to the proceedings, PTI reported.
Delhi Police issued the notice on October 17 under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), directing Bora to appear before the SEM on October 19 and explain why she should not be required to execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 along with one surety.
Section 126 of the BNSS empowers an SEM to seek such a bond when credible information indicates that a person may breach the peace, disturb public tranquillity or commit an act likely to cause a disturbance.
In her petition, drafted by lawyer Abhik Chimni, Bora challenged the notice as vague and factually incorrect. She argued that it failed to provide any material or information establishing that she was likely to breach the peace, which she said was a necessary condition for initiating preventive proceedings under the provision.
Bora was taken into preventive detention on October 16 while travelling to join the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march at Connaught Place. She was released the following day.
The proceedings before the SEM relate to allegations of sloganeering at Mandi House on October 16, repeated protests near Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and allegedly instigating people to participate in the demonstration.
During Thursday’s hearing, Bora’s senior counsel argued that citizens did not need permission to hoist the national flag. The lawyer also maintained that seeking regime change was not wrong in a democracy.
Opposing the petition, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma told the court that there had been “12 violations” by Neha Bora, one after another, which had been examined by the Magistrate.
He also referred to remarks allegedly made by Bora at a press conference concerning “regime change”, arguing that a change of regime takes place through votes and not through “lumpen elements in the nerve of New Delhi”.
Bora was among those detained by Delhi Police on October 16 as security was tightened across central Delhi ahead of the proposed ‘Tiranga Assembly’ organised by the CJP at Central Park in Connaught Place. The demonstration, scheduled for 5 pm, had been denied permission by the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC).
Although the High Court declined to grant the relief sought by Bora at this stage, its directions to the SEM require that she be given access to the material relevant to the proceedings.
The notice, issued following her participation in the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march on October 16, asked her to “maintain peace during an inquiry”.
Justice Subramonium Prasad, while pronouncing the order, said, "I am rejecting the writ petition at this juncture."
The court, however, directed the special executive magistrate (SEM) to ensure that Bora received all material relevant to the proceedings, PTI reported.
Delhi Police issued the notice on October 17 under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), directing Bora to appear before the SEM on October 19 and explain why she should not be required to execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 along with one surety.
Section 126 of the BNSS empowers an SEM to seek such a bond when credible information indicates that a person may breach the peace, disturb public tranquillity or commit an act likely to cause a disturbance.
In her petition, drafted by lawyer Abhik Chimni, Bora challenged the notice as vague and factually incorrect. She argued that it failed to provide any material or information establishing that she was likely to breach the peace, which she said was a necessary condition for initiating preventive proceedings under the provision.
Bora was taken into preventive detention on October 16 while travelling to join the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march at Connaught Place. She was released the following day.
The proceedings before the SEM relate to allegations of sloganeering at Mandi House on October 16, repeated protests near Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and allegedly instigating people to participate in the demonstration.
During Thursday’s hearing, Bora’s senior counsel argued that citizens did not need permission to hoist the national flag. The lawyer also maintained that seeking regime change was not wrong in a democracy.
Opposing the petition, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma told the court that there had been “12 violations” by Neha Bora, one after another, which had been examined by the Magistrate.
He also referred to remarks allegedly made by Bora at a press conference concerning “regime change”, arguing that a change of regime takes place through votes and not through “lumpen elements in the nerve of New Delhi”.
Bora was among those detained by Delhi Police on October 16 as security was tightened across central Delhi ahead of the proposed ‘Tiranga Assembly’ organised by the CJP at Central Park in Connaught Place. The demonstration, scheduled for 5 pm, had been denied permission by the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC).
Although the High Court declined to grant the relief sought by Bora at this stage, its directions to the SEM require that she be given access to the material relevant to the proceedings.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment