Delhi High Court rejects AISA leader Neha Bora’s pea against preventive proceedings
“The writ petition is rejected. However, there are certain directions. All the material is to be furnished to her,” the judge said.
Published: Oct 23, 2026, 08:13 PM IST
| Updated: Oct 23, 2026, 08:16 PM IST
“The writ petition is rejected. However, there are certain directions. All the material is to be furnished to her,” the judge said.
The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a writ petition filed by AISA leader Neha Bora challenging preventive proceedings against her, while directing the Special Executive Magistrate to provide her with all material relied upon in the case.
Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected Bora’s challenge to a notice asking her to execute a bond of ₹10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during the inquiry.
“The writ petition is rejected. However, there are certain directions. All the material is to be furnished to her,” the judge said.
Bora had challenged the proceedings initiated against her under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), questioning the legality of the notice and the procedure followed by the authorities.
Bora’s challenge to preventive action
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Bora, argued that the notice had been issued without proper application of mind and contained assertions disputed by his client.
He told the court that Bora, an AISA leader involved in public protests, had called for a gathering at Mandi House on October 16 after Jantar Mantar was denotified as a protest site.
Sankaranarayanan maintained that the proposed gathering was intended to be peaceful and did not amount to an exhortation to violence or the commission of an offence. He also disputed the suggestion that Bora had called for a gathering at Connaught Place, arguing that another group had organised the demonstration there.
The counsel questioned the factual basis of statements in the notice, including a reference to a proposed hoisting of the national flag without permission. He argued that the notice appeared to reproduce allegations without showing that the Special Executive Magistrate had independently assessed them.
He also contended that preventive action affecting an individual must strictly follow the procedure prescribed by law.
Court raises concern over stigma
During the hearing, the court examined whether the magistrate had independently assessed the information before him and considered the relevant material in accordance with the statutory framework.
The bench also discussed the stigma associated with preventive proceedings, including the possibility that a person could feel branded as someone likely to disturb the peace.
“The concern of the petitioner is that I am already branded as a bad boy and asked to say ‘you shall be a good boy’,” Justice Prasad observed, adding that the issue had a facet involving Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court also considered the scope of its jurisdiction under Article 226 and whether it should examine the challenge before the inquiry under Section 135 of the BNSS had concluded.
Centre defends proceedings
Opposing the petition, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, assisted by Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish Dixit, questioned whether the plea was maintainable and defended the initiation of preventive proceedings.
Sharma referred to six FIRs against Bora and alleged repeated violations, arguing that the authorities had material to assess the possibility of a breach of peace.
He also cited a prohibitory order under Section 163 of the BNSS which, according to the State, was in force in the relevant area at the time. Sharma submitted that the circumstances and information available to the police had to be considered when deciding whether preventive action was warranted.
During his submissions, Sharma referred to a gathering involving other individuals and statements concerning “regime change”. Bora’s counsel disputed the implications drawn from those circumstances, while the ASG argued that political change should take place through the electoral process.
Police records cited in court
Addressing the material placed before the Special Executive Magistrate, Sharma said the police kalandra was accompanied by relevant records, including general diary entries and FIRs. He also referred to the investigating officer being called to explain the circumstances.
Dixit confirmed that the kalandra was accompanied by FIRs and general diary entries.
The State argued that Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS operated together in cases involving a likelihood of a breach of peace. Sharma maintained that the proceedings were preventive in nature and had not, at that stage, resulted in the imposition of a bond or any penal consequence.
The High Court ultimately dismissed Bora’s writ petition but directed the magistrate to furnish all material relied upon in the proceedings to her. The case concerned a notice requiring her to execute a bond of ₹10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during the inquiry.
(with ANI inputs)
Stay informed on all the latest news, real-time breaking news updates, and follow all the important headlines in india news and world news on Zee News.
Add Zee News as a Preferred Source
About the Author
