Neha Bora moves Delhi HC against notice issued under BNSS Section 126

The Delhi High Court will hear AISA president Neha Bora’s plea on October 22 challenging a police notice requiring her to execute a peace bond. Bora alleges the notice is vague and seeks protection against coercive action by police

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday said it would hear on October 22 a plea by All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora challenging a Delhi Police notice asking her to execute a “peace” bond before a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM).

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.

---

Justice Subramonium Prasad deferred the hearing at the request of Bora’s counsel.

The case was listed after the student leader sought an urgent hearing before the High Court, which is closed this week for the Dussehra vacation.

The notice, issued on October 17 under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), asked Bora to appear before the SEM 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 require a person to execute such a bond if there is credible information that the person is likely to breach the peace, disturb public tranquillity or commit a wrongful act that may cause a disturbance.

Bora was taken into preventive detention on October 16 while on her way to join the Cockroach Janata Party’s (CJP) ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march. She was released on October 17.

In her petition, settled by lawyer Abhik Chimni, Bora said the police notice was vague, factually incorrect and contained no material or information to substantiate the likelihood of a breach of peace.

The plea argued that the notice did not disclose a “period, occasion or event in relation to which breach is apprehended”. It also contended that the proceedings were a “colourable exercise of preventive powers to suppress peaceful dissent, in violation of Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 21 of the Constitution”.

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 the BNSS, and instigating people to participate in a protest at Connaught Place on October 16.

“The Impugned Notice rests on a prima facie incorrect fact, namely that the Petitioner instigated people to participate in the demonstration at Central Park, Connaught Place on 16.10.2026. The Petitioner’s call and the incident alleged were different. The Petitioner called for a peaceful gathering at Mandi House at 5:00 PM on 16.10.2026, and it is a matter of record that she was detained from Mandi House,” the petition said.

“The alleged disregard of ‘prohibitory orders 163 BNSS’ in the Notice does not identify any specific prohibitory order and incident. In fact, the only order on record dated 23.08.2026 does not extend to Mandi House and exempts Jantar Mantar Road,” it added.