NEW DELHI: All India Students' Association (AISA) president Neha Bora on Monday moved the Delhi High Court challenging a Delhi Police notice that directed her to execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 along with one surety "for keeping the peace for the period of inquiry", escalating a confrontation between the student organisation and the city police that began with her preventive detention last week.
The notice, dated October 17 and served on October 18 by the New Delhi District police, was issued under Sections 126 and 130, read with Section 135(3), of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. It required Bora to appear before the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) for the New Delhi District on Monday, October 19, at 2 p.m. in connection with proceedings initiated to secure her bond for maintaining peace during the period of inquiry.
Her legal team, led by advocates Abhik Chimni, Pranjal Abrol and Moksha, mentioned the matter before the court on Monday morning, seeking an urgent hearing before the Chief Justice. The urgency arose because the Delhi High Court is currently on its Dussehra vacation and is scheduled to reopen on October 26, which means any interim relief against the notice would have to come from a vacation bench of the court.
According to AISA, the petition seeks a stay on the operation of the notice and its eventual withdrawal. The student body has described the notice as prima facie ambiguous and factually incorrect, arguing that it suffers from vagueness about the alleged apprehension of breach of peace and that it fails to disclose the material on the basis of which the police concluded that such proceedings were necessary.
The petition further contends that the notice violates Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression and to personal liberty. The argument, as outlined by her lawyers, is that compelling a student leader to execute a peace bond in the aftermath of a peaceful protest programme amounts to an impermissible restraint on constitutionally protected political expression and dissent.
The legal team is also expected to appear before the Special Executive Magistrate on Monday to respond to the notice, even as the High Court petition remains pending. The dual-track approach — contesting the notice before the executive magistrate while simultaneously seeking judicial intervention — reflects the compressed timeline imposed by the 2 p.m. appearance and the court's vacation schedule.
To understand the legal framework invoked by the police, Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS deal with security proceedings. Section 126 empowers an executive magistrate, on receiving information that a person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb public tranquillity, to require that person to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute a bond for keeping the peace.
Section 130 extends similar provisions to situations involving a likely breach of the peace arising from disputes. Section 135(3) concerns the procedure for inquiry in such cases. These provisions are the successors, under the new criminal procedure code that replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2024, to the familiar Sections 107 and 116 of the old CrPC.
The notice follows Bora's preventive detention on October 16, when she was taken into custody while heading towards the 'Lehra Do Tiranga' march organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) near Mandi House in central Delhi. The march was part of a series of protests demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
She was released on October 17, with Live Law reporting that the Delhi Police released her after completing formalities under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act, which deals with the police's power to take preventive action in certain circumstances.
CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke was also placed under preventive arrest under Sections 126 and 170 of the BNSS on apprehension of a breach of the peace, and was released by the Special Executive Court on Sunday evening. Section 170 of the BNSS corresponds to the preventive arrest power earlier found in Section 151 of the CrPC, permitting arrest to prevent the commission of cognisable offences.
Since her release, AISA has alleged that plainclothes personnel of the Delhi Police have been following Bora, questioning whether the surveillance was a matter of standard protocol or an attempt at intimidation of a student leader.
The organisation has further claimed that the police have repeatedly invoked Section 163 of the BNSS — the successor to Section 144 of the CrPC, which empowers magistrates to issue prohibitory orders — to restrict demonstrations by students in the capital. Students participating in the protests have also alleged instances of brutality at the hands of the police during dispersal operations.
The protests against the Special Intensive Revision have gathered momentum in the national capital through October, with student groups, civil society organisations and opposition parties questioning the manner in which the revision of electoral rolls is being conducted.
The demand for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has become a rallying point for these demonstrations, with protesters alleging that the revision process threatens the integrity of the voter lists ahead of upcoming electoral exercises.
Student organisations have historically occupied a prominent place in Delhi's protest landscape, from the anti-corruption agitations of the last decade to more recent movements on university campuses and in public spaces. The use of preventive detention and security proceedings against student leaders has frequently drawn criticism from civil liberties groups, which argue that such measures have a chilling effect on democratic protest.
Legal experts note that proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS are preventive rather than punitive in nature, designed to secure a bond for good behaviour rather than to punish past conduct. However, courts have repeatedly held that such proceedings must be based on concrete information and cannot be used as a tool to stifle legitimate dissent.
The Delhi High Court has, in past cases, scrutinised the invocation of security proceedings against protesters and journalists, emphasising that the mere apprehension of a breach of the peace must be grounded in material facts.
The outcome of Monday's proceedings, both before the vacation bench and the Special Executive Magistrate, will determine whether Bora is required to execute the bond. AISA has indicated that it intends to pursue the matter to its logical conclusion, framing the case as a test of the space available for student activism and political dissent in the national capital.
As the matter develops, the response of the Delhi Police to the allegations of surveillance and the invocation of prohibitory orders is likely to come under closer scrutiny, particularly in light of the constitutional arguments raised in the petition regarding the rights to free speech and personal liberty.
(Reporting based on The Hindu and Live Law.)