|
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with preventive proceedings initiated against AISA president Neha Bora, holding that the show-cause notice issued to her by the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) met the requirements of law and that the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court had not been violated at this stage.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the notice was issued after the SEM considered a police report, accompanying material and the submission of the police officer concerned, and formed an opinion that there were sufficient grounds to initiate proceedings under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The court said the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr had not been violated at the stage under consideration. It dismissed Boras petition challenging the notice that required her to show cause why she should not furnish a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety in a like amount to maintain peace. The ruling provides judicial backing to the initiation of the preventive proceedings at the notice stage, while leaving the Special Executive Magistrate to independently decide whether a bond is ultimately required. The Impugned Notice meets the requirements of a show cause notice under Chapter IX of the BNSS, the court said, adding that the SEM must ensure compliance with the applicable legal safeguards during subsequent proceedings. The judgment records that the SEMs order dated October 17, 2026, was based on a kalandra submitted by the police along with supporting material. The SEM also recorded the submission of Sub-Inspector Vaishali Tushir before concluding that there were sufficient grounds to initiate preventive proceedings. According to the police report, Bora had allegedly participated in protest-related activities despite prohibitory orders and called people to gather at Mandi House on October 16. The police further alleged that she had been involved in efforts to mobilise people for an unauthorised demonstration at Central Park, Connaught Place, and that there was an apprehension of a breach of public peace and tranquillity. The police material also referred to earlier protest-related activities and the possibility of further demonstrations. These allegations formed part of the material considered by the SEM while initiating the proceedings. Bora was detained by Delhi Police on October 16 after she posted on Instagram inviting people to gather at Mandi House at 5 pm. She was released the following day, when the SEM issued the notice under Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS. Bora approached the High Court seeking to quash the notice, contending that it did not satisfy the requirements of Section 126 of the BNSS and was based on insufficient material. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Bora, argued that the notice did not comply with the legal requirements governing preventive proceedings. He also relied on Supreme Court and High Court judgments laying down safeguards in such cases. Opposing the petition, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma submitted that the SEM had received sufficient information through the police report and accompanying material before forming an opinion that there were grounds to initiate proceedings. The court accepted that the notice met the requirements of a show-cause notice under Chapter IX of the BNSS and found no basis to quash it at the present stage. While dismissing the plea, the High Court clarified that the SEM must independently assess the material before deciding whether Bora should be required to furnish a personal bond or bail bond. The court specifically referred to Section 135(3) of the BNSS and left it open to the SEM to decide whether to insist on a bond at the initial stage of the inquiry. It said the provision contemplates furnishing a bond if an apprehension of breach of peace or disturbance arises after commencement and before completion of the inquiry. The SEM must take into account the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye and by the Delhi High Court in Aldanish Rein v. State (NCT of Delhi) while passing an order under the provision. The High Court also clarified that its observations were confined to the question of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution at the stage of issuance of the show-cause notice. Bora would remain at liberty to pursue remedies available under law at appropriate stages, including after the final order in the inquiry. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma appeared for the State along with Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish K. Dixit and other advocates, including Umar Hashmi, Amit Gupta, Shubham Sharma, Naman, Adhiraj Singh and Shaurya R. Rai. Bora was represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan along with advocates Abhik Chimni, Pranjal Abrol, Ayan Das Gupta, Moksha Sharma, Gurupal Singh, Kartik Venu, Vishal Sinha, Kanish Garg, Indu Mugi C and Aayushman Aggarwal. Advocates Prashant Prakash and Bhairav Dass also appeared in the matter, while advocates Jai Anant Dehadrai, Yashvi Swani, Ram P. Dubey and Apurva Chatterji appeared for the intervenor. The High Court dismissed the writ petition along with pending applications. (ANI)
|
