All India Students Association (AISA) president Neha Bora on Thursday told the Delhi High Court that she was not involved in the Cockroach Janta Party's (CJP) protest call, challenging the notice issued to her after her detention on October 16. Her lawyer argued that she had not committed any offence or engaged in any activity that could be considered a breach of peace.
The Delhi High Court is hearing Bora's petition challenging a notice issued by a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM), directing her to execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 and maintain peace. Bora received the notice on October 18, a day after she was released following her detention while marching towards Mandi House on October 16.
The notice cited repeated protests around Jantar Mantar, which has been de-notified as a protest site, and alleged that Bora had instigated people to go to Connaught Place despite prohibitory orders being in force there.
After hearing both sides, the Delhi High Court reserved its order for Friday.
NO INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE, BORA'S LAWYER TELLS COURT
Representing Bora, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan told the court that she was detained barely 10 to 15 minutes after reaching Mandi House on the evening of October 16. He argued that she had not committed any offence, including a breach of peace, on that date.
Referring to a social media post announcing a gathering at Mandi House at 5 pm, Sankaranarayanan said the post merely stated, "see you today at 5 PM."
He argued that the post did not contain any call for violence, an attempt to disturb public peace or an invitation to gather to commit an offence.
"The original order passed did not include any of these areas," the lawyer said, referring to the grounds cited in the notice.
Sankaranarayanan also referred to a press conference held on October 15 and a social media post published the following day, arguing that Bora's activities had been peaceful.
CENTRE, BORA CLASH OVER REGIME CHANGE REMARKS
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, representing the Delhi Police and the Centre, pointed out that Bora had engaged in "complete violations, one after another, 12 times," media reported.
Sankaranarayanan argued that there was nothing wrong with a change of regime in a democratic setup. The Centre objected, saying that a change of regime could happen only through votes and "not by lumpen elements in the nerve of Delhi."
The ASG further argued that the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) had applied his mind twice, backed by "overwhelming" material that had been examined. He said the SEM issued the notice only after cross-checking the information provided by the investigating officer (IO).
The court, flagging the petitioner's concerns, said the proceedings stemmed from the stigma of being branded a "bad boy" and being told to behave as a "good boy". It added that the matter involved an element of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
LAWYER FLAGS RESTRICTIONS ON PROTEST SITES
Bora's lawyer told the court that Jantar Mantar was an exempted area where processions could be held, while Mandi House and other locations were not part of that area.
He also pointed out that authorities had issued orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in several parts of Delhi, restricting activities in notified areas.
Sankaranarayanan argued that Bora had made several public posts and participated in previous protests without facing objections. He said she was an active public figure and the president of AISA.
Referring to the wider protest movement, the lawyer said there had been no violence and that Bora's statements had remained measured, with calls focused on reform.
On the other hand, the ASG argued that Bora's claim that she had separated herself from the CJP and was acting independently during the march towards Connaught Place was inconsistent with how the events unfolded.
He pointed out that Section 163 was in force in Connaught Place and surrounding areas, and that a barricade displayed a notice about the prohibitory order. The Centre claimed that Bora moved past the police and ran towards the route leading to Connaught Place from the Mandi House area.
Bora's petition challenges the notice issued by the SEM under Section 126 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) directing Bora to furnish a personal bond of Rs 10,000 and maintain peace.
Bora's petition contends that the notice is vague and factually incorrect, with no material to establish that she was likely to breach the peace. The proceedings stem from allegations that she raised slogans at Mandi House, repeatedly protested near Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders, and encouraged people to join a protest at Connaught Place on October 16.
Section 126 allows the SEM to require a person to furnish such a bond when credible information suggests that the person is likely to breach the peace, disrupt public tranquillity or commit a wrongful act that could cause a disturbance.
Bora was placed under preventive detention on October 16 while travelling to participate in the Cockroach Janata Party's (CJP) 'Lehra Do Tiranga', or 'Let the Tricolour Fly', march. She was released the following day.
The petition alleged that the proceedings misused preventive powers to suppress peaceful dissent, violating Bora’s fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression, peaceful assembly, and life under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 21 of the Constitution.
