Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected Neha Bora’s plea against proceedings seeking a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety. Bora had argued that the notice lacked material establishing a likelihood of breach of peace.
BY PC Bureau
New Delhi, October 23, 2026: The Delhi High Court has refused to quash a peace-bond notice issued to All India Students’ Association (AISA) national president Neha Bora following her detention during a protest at Mandi House on October 16. The court, however, directed the concerned magistrate to provide her with the relevant material before passing any further order in the proceedings.
Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed Neha Bora’s petition challenging the notice, which requires her to show cause in proceedings seeking a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety to ensure that she maintains peace while an inquiry is pending.
The notice was issued on October 17 under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), read with Section 135(3). Neha Bora had sought its quashing, along with all consequential proceedings, and protection against coercive action.
READ: Gyanesh Kumar’s Brother Humiliated Me at Delhi Airport: Mann
What the Law Provides
Section 126 of the BNSS empowers an executive magistrate to initiate proceedings when information suggests that a person is likely to breach the peace or disturb public tranquillity. Section 130 requires the magistrate to set out the substance of the information in a written order.
Under Section 135(3), the magistrate may, for reasons recorded in writing, direct a person to execute a bond for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour while the inquiry continues. The provision also permits detention in specified circumstances until the bond is furnished or the inquiry concludes.
The High Court’s direction requires the magistrate to provide Neha Bora with the relevant material before taking the proceedings further.
Neha Bora Challenges Basis of Notice
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Neha Bora, argued that the protest she had called for on October 16 was peaceful and that she had never advocated violence. He submitted that seeking political change through democratic means could not, by itself, justify proceedings to require a peace bond.
The petition argued that the notice had been issued mechanically and contained no material establishing a likelihood of breach of the peace, which it described as an essential precondition for action under Section 126.
Sankaranarayanan also contended that even an interim direction requiring a bond should follow a preliminary inquiry into the material relied upon by the authorities.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the State, defended the magistrate’s action. He argued that Section 126 confers broad discretionary powers based on the magistrate’s satisfaction arising from information received. Such satisfaction, he submitted, need not depend on formal evidence but must be grounded in the information available.
Sharma also pointed out that prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS were in force in the area, including Mandi House, when Bora was detained.
What Happened on October 16
According to her petition, Neha Bora had called for a peaceful gathering at Mandi House at 5 pm on October 16, followed by the unfurling of the national flag at Central Park in Connaught Place. The protest was part of a broader campaign against the Chief Election Commissioner.
Bora alleged that she was detained at around 5.30 pm, taken first to an undisclosed location and subsequently to R.K. Puram Police Station, where she remained overnight. She said she was released at 6 am on October 17.
Neha received the peace-bond notice on October 18. It cited alleged sloganeering at Mandi House, repeated protests near Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders, and allegations that she had instigated people to participate in the Connaught Place gathering.
Neha challenged the notice on the ground that it did not establish any credible basis for apprehending a breach of peace. The High Court has dismissed her challenge but directed the Special Executive Magistrate to furnish the relevant material before passing any further order in the inquiry.
