AISA president Neha Bora tells Delhi High Court no permission needed to hoist national flag

AISA president Neha Bora has challenged a Delhi Police notice requiring her to execute a peace bond, arguing that citizens need no permission to hoist the national flag. The Delhi High Court heard arguments and said it would rule Friday.

New Delhi: All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora on Thursday contended before the Delhi High Court that citizens don’t need permission to hoist the national flag, while challenging a police notice asking her to execute a “peace” bond before a special executive magistrate.

While referring to the Delhi Police notice which said that Bora hoisted the national flag without valid permission, her counsel submitted that citizens don’t need permission to hoist the national flag.

---

Justice Subramonium Prasad, who held the court on a holiday as the high court is shut for the Dusherra vacation, said he would pass his order on the petition on Friday.

During the arguments, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Bora, said there was nothing wrong in seeking regime change in a democracy.

This was in response to an argument by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, representing Delhi Police, that drew the court’s attention to certain material, including a joint press conference attended by Bora where a statement on regime change was made.

He said it was stated in the joint sitting that “yeh regime change ki ladai hai and hum regime change kara ke rahenge” (this is a fight for regime change and we will get the regime changed).

To this, Sankaranarayanan said Bora had not said that and “there is nothing wrong with regime change in a democracy”.

The law officer objected to this saying, “You were part of that press conference. I will take exception to this. A regime change in a democracy will happen by votes and not by lumpen elements congregating in the nerve of Delhi”.

Bora, who has been at the forefront of protests against alleged irregularities in the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, has sought quashing of the notice and directions to the police not to take any coercive action against her.

Challenging the police notice, Bora’s lawyer argued that there was no application of mind or independent opinion by the SEM (special executive magistrate) while issuing the notice and it was a mere cut-and-paste job that was done mechanically.

While referring to the police notice, the lawyer said, “According to the notice what I have done — shouting loudly at the protest at the roundabout of Mandi House. You were involved in protest-related activities in and around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders. You instigated people to participate in unauthorised demonstration at Central Park, Connaught Place… and also hoist the national flag without obtaining valid permission.

“Maybe they need some instruction on law that we don’t need permission to hoist the national flag,” he said.

According to the notice, there is apprehension of breach of public peace and tranquillity within the jurisdiction of the SEM’s court.

Challenging the notice, Bora said it does not meet the essential requirements as mandated by the law.

Even for an interim bond, enquiry is essential and the SEM could not have directly asked for furnishing the bond, her counsel said.

“Before you issue such a notice, you need to show the parameters that such a notice should go,” he said, adding that the notice issued by the police was expressly bad constitutionally as well as legally wrong.

“I am not on merits. I am only asking for compliance with the law which is not there and this entitles me to come to the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution,” he contended.

During the hearing, the court asked the police whether, except the ‘kalandra’, there was any other material or enquiry done before issuance of the notice.

The court orally asked police to hold off till the time it pronounces the order.

To this, the ASG said if the petitioner is ready to give an undertaking to the court that she will not breach peace, he was ready to give the statement.

The court later said it would pass the order on Friday. It said the petitioner’s concern was that “I am already branded as a bad boy and I have been asked to say that I shall be a good boy. It is that stigma which a person has which has led to this proceeding. It has a facet in Article 21”.

The ASG said there were 12 violations by Bora and complete records were available with the SEM and there was independent application of mind while issuing the notice.

“It is not a simple case of an innocent woman…,” he said.

The notice, issued on October 17 under Section 126, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), asked the student leader to appear before the SEM (special executive magistrate) on October 19 and show cause why she should not execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety “for keeping peace for a period of enquiry”.

Section 126 empowers the SEM to enforce such bond signing if there is credible information that a person is likely to breach the peace, disturb public tranquillity, or commit a wrongful act that may cause disturbance.

Bora was taken into preventive detention on October 16 when she was on her way to join the Cockroach Janta Party’s “Lehra Do Tiranga” march. She was released on October 17.

In her petition, settled by lawyer Abhik Chimni, Bora said that the police notice is vague, factually incorrect, and contains no material or information to substantiate the “likelihood” of breach of peace.

The proceedings before the SEM are based on allegations of sloganeering at Mandi House on October 16, repeated protests around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under section 163 of BNSS, and instigating people to participate in a demonstration at Connaught Place on October 16.