Delhi High Court: Neha Bora Peace Bond BNSS Plea Dismissed, Directives Issued

• The Delhi High Court dismissed AISA President Neha Bora's challenge against a Delhi Police peace bond notice.
• The notice required Bora to show cause why she should not furnish a ₹10,000 bond to maintain peace under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
• Justice Subramonium Prasad mandated that police material must be provided to Bora and the magistrate must consider Section 135 BNSS before issuing an order.
• Bora's counsel, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, argued the notice lacked substance and independent application of mind by the magistrate.
• The State, represented by Chetan Sharma, cited prior FIRs and remarks made by Bora, arguing for the necessity of the bond.

Justice Prasad's strong emphasis on providing all police material to the individual and requiring the magistrate to independently assess statutory safeguards, particularly Section 135 BNSS, reinforces crucial due process requirements.

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by Neha Bora, President of the All India Students' Association (AISA), challenging a peace bond notice issued by a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM). The notice required Ms. Bora to demonstrate why she should not be compelled to furnish a personal bond of ₹10,000, along with one surety, to ensure the maintenance of peace during an ongoing inquiry. Justice Subramonium Prasad delivered the ruling, which, while dismissing the plea "at this juncture," included crucial directives for the magistrate overseeing the inquiry.

The central legal question in Neha Bora's writ petition concerned whether the notice, issued under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, adequately satisfied the statutory requirements governing preventive proceedings. Justice Prasad underscored the imperative for the magistrate to strictly adhere to statutory safeguards before advancing with the inquiry. He explicitly mandated that all pertinent police material must be furnished to Ms. Bora. Furthermore, the court stressed that the magistrate must thoroughly consider the scope and application of Section 135 BNSS before issuing any order in the inquiry, specifically determining if the bond is required at the outset or only if a subsequent incident during the inquiry poses a threat to peace.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Neha Bora, argued that the peace bond notice failed to disclose the substance of the information against her and did not demonstrate the Magistrate’s independent application of mind regarding a potential breach of public peace and tranquillity. He also contested the inclusion of the proposed bond at the initial show-cause stage, asserting that the statutory inquiry must precede any interim measure under Section 135(3) BNSS. Mr. Sankaranarayanan defended Ms. Bora's participation in protests as a form of peaceful dissent, essential for democracy, stating that she had never incited violence and her words were always modulated. He noted that Ms. Bora had called for a gathering at Mandi House on October 16 following the de-notification of Jantar Mantar, and was detained shortly after arriving, disputing any allegation of instigating people.

Conversely, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Delhi Police and the State, maintained that Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 must be read together. He contended that the Magistrate had considered substantial material beyond just the police Kalandra, including General Diary entries and several prior FIRs. ASG Sharma highlighted remarks made by Ms. Bora during a joint press conference with CJP leaders and Advocate Prashant Bhushan, specifically "yeh regime change ki ladayi hai, hum regime change kara kar rahenge," arguing that democratic regime change occurs through votes, not through "lumpen elements." He also referenced six FIRs, questioning if such a record could be ignored.

While the Delhi High Court dismissed Neha Bora’s writ petition against the Delhi Police’s peace bond notice at an initial stage, the ruling holds significant implications for preventive proceedings in India. Justice Prasad's strong emphasis on providing all police material to the individual and requiring the magistrate to independently assess statutory safeguards, particularly Section 135 BNSS, reinforces crucial due process requirements. This decision signals that even under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, authorities must strictly adhere to procedural fairness and demonstrate a reasoned application of mind before imposing conditions like a peace bond, offering a vital precedent for individuals facing similar notices under the BNSS.

Lawyers advising individuals served with peace-bond notices under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) should note that while the Delhi High Court dismissed a challenge to such a notice at an initial stage, it strongly reiterated the mandatory requirement for police to furnish all relevant material to the individual and for the magistrate to independently consider statutory safeguards, particularly Section 135 BNSS, before requiring a bond. This reinforces procedural due process requirements that can be leveraged in future challenges or compliance efforts.

Source: Original reporting via Lawbeat News Desk