All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora has formally challenged a police mandate before the Delhi High Court. The petition, filed on Monday, seeks to quash a notice issued under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which required the student leader to appear before a special executive magistrate and execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 along with a surety to maintain public peace.
Bora, who has been actively protesting against alleged irregularities in the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, is reportedly planning to request an urgent hearing in the High Court as the matter awaits listing. Her legal challenge asks the court to block any coercive action by the police against her, describing the current proceedings as a misuse of preventive powers intended to curb legitimate protest.
The controversy stems from events on October 16, when Bora was placed under preventive detention while traveling to a demonstration organized by the Cockroach Janata Party at Central Park, Connaught Place. Although she was released a day later, police issued the impugned notice on October 17, citing concerns regarding a potential breach of peace. The notice instructed her to appear before a magistrate on October 19 to justify why she should not be bound over for the duration of an ongoing inquiry.
In her plea, the petitioner contends that the police notice lacks transparency and factual accuracy. She argues that the authorities have failed to provide any specific evidence or detail regarding the alleged "likelihood" of a breach of peace, nor have they identified the specific events or occasions justifying such a measure. The petition characterizes the police action as a "colourable exercise of preventive powers" that infringes upon her fundamental rights, specifically those guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The legal filing further challenges the claims made by the police regarding her alleged role in recent demonstrations. The notice had accused Bora of instigating individuals to participate in the protest at Central Park, an assertion she disputes as factually incorrect. According to her petition, she had issued a call for a peaceful gathering at Mandi House at 5:00 pm on October 16, and she was, in fact, taken into custody from that location, rather than at the site of the alleged disturbance in Connaught Place.
Furthermore, the petition addresses the police allegations concerning violations of prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the BNSS. Bora’s legal team argues that the notice fails to identify any specific incident or relevant order that was purportedly disregarded. The plea highlights that existing records suggest the relevant prohibitory orders dated August 23 do not apply to the Mandi House area and explicitly exempt the Jantar Mantar Road, casting doubt on the legal validity of the police accusations.
As the matter proceeds, the court’s decision will be closely watched, as it concerns the balance between administrative preventive measures and the right to peaceful dissent. The petitioner is expected to seek an immediate hearing to address the validity of the notice and the broader implications for the student organization’s ongoing protest activities.
Comments