Delhi: The Delhi High Court has directed the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) to provide AISA president Neha Bora with all material relied upon against her and ensure that the principles of natural justice are followed before deciding whether she must furnish a peace bond. Bora has refused to sign any such bond, describing it as an attempt to curb dissent, while AISA has alleged that a group of right-wing supporters threatened her outside Mandir Marg Police Station on Saturday.
Justice Subramonium Prasad issued the directions on October 23 while dismissing Bora’s petition challenging a show-cause notice issued under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The court did not quash the notice or stay the preventive proceedings. However, it specified procedural safeguards that must be followed before the SEM decides whether a bond is warranted.
Bora appeared before the SEM at Mandir Marg Police Station in New Delhi on October 24, according to a statement issued by the All India Students’ Association (AISA). The organisation said the next hearing had been scheduled for October 29.
Delhi HC Orders Disclosure of Evidence in Neha Bora’s Peace-Bond Case
Bora had challenged the show-cause notice on procedural grounds, arguing that the material forming the basis of the allegations had not been provided to her and that she had not been served with the kalandra setting out the case against her. She contended that she was being summoned to proceedings without being given the documents needed to understand and respond to the allegations.
The preventive proceedings concern allegations of a possible breach of peace, including alleged nuisance at Mandi House and alleged instigation to participate in an unauthorised demonstration at Central Park, Connaught Place. These are allegations forming the basis of the proceedings, not findings of guilt.
The High Court examined records that included three General Diary entries, a kalandra dated October 17, 2026, and records relating to FIRs registered at Parliament Street, Barakhamba Road and Connaught Place police stations. It also took note of prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the BNSS and the SEM’s examination of three witnesses.
The court held that sufficient material existed to initiate the proceedings, rejecting the argument that the case rested merely on the kalandra or hearsay. Its decision, however, did not amount to a final determination of the allegations against Bora.
Why AISA President Neha Bora Is Refusing to Sign a Peace Bond
Paragraph 38 of the order directs the State to provide Bora with all material on which it intends to rely during the inquiry and which formed the basis of the impugned notice. It also directs the SEM to ensure that the principles of natural justice are not violated before passing any order requiring her to furnish a bond.
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr (1970) and asked the SEM to keep Section 135 of the BNSS in mind while deciding whether a bond should be required. The magistrate must independently assess the material and proceed in accordance with the law.
The directions do not bar the SEM from continuing the inquiry or predetermine its outcome. They require the proceedings to follow the prescribed legal safeguards before any decision on a bond is taken.
AISA Alleges Threats Against Neha Bora Outside Mandir Marg Police Station
In its statement, AISA said Bora held a press conference before appearing before the SEM. It quoted her as saying: “We will not sign any peace bond which is tactic of curbing dissent and is being used as a weapon in Modi’s war against the people and democracy.”
AISA alleged that, as Bora approached Mandir Marg Police Station, a group it described as a right-wing mob occupied the entrance, raised slogans against her and threatened violence. According to the organisation, the police brought her inside under protection after about an hour so that she could attend the proceedings.
AISA has shared videos relating to the incident, and Bora has also released a video about it. The footage provides visual material concerning the confrontation outside the police station. The group’s identity, the full context of the incident and the circumstances surrounding the alleged threats should be assessed against the available footage and other evidence.
AISA further said that the SEM had supplied the supporting documents in compliance with the High Court’s directions and fixed October 29 as the next date of hearing.
Neha Bora Peace-Bond Row Puts Protest Rights and Due Process in Focus
AISA said it would comply with legal procedures but would not sign any bond that it believes infringes the right to protest and demand accountability. The organisation has linked the proceedings to the broader question of the right to dissent.
Bora’s petition before the High Court has been dismissed, but the preventive proceedings before the SEM will continue. The magistrate must consider the material independently, provide the documents relied upon and ensure that Bora has a fair opportunity to respond before deciding whether a bond is necessary.
The High Court did not rule on the merits of Bora’s political campaign or the broader questions surrounding the right to protest. Its directions concern procedural fairness in the preventive proceedings, leaving the SEM to decide the matter in accordance with the law.
