The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a petition by All India Students' Association (AISA) national president Neha Bora challenging a police notice that asks her to execute a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during an inquiry, following her participation in the October 16 'Lehra Do Tiranga' protest. After hearing the parties for over two-and-a-half hours, Justice Subramonium Prasad said the order will be pronounced on Friday at 6 pm, Live Law reported.
Source: Live Law
Bora has challenged an October 17 notice issued by a Special Executive Magistrate under Sections 126 and 130, read with Section 135(3), of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). She has sought quashing of the notice and the proceedings arising from it, and a direction restraining the authorities from taking coercive action against her. PTI also reported that the High Court will pass its order on Bora's petition on Friday.
Source: PTI via DailyWorld
'Nothing wrong in seeking regime change in a democracy'
Appearing for Bora, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that her October 16 protest call was peaceful, that she had never called for violence, and that her detention was 'completely illegal'. He told the court Bora was not involved in a separate protest call given by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) to unfurl the national flag at Connaught Place's Central Park, and that she was detained 10–15 minutes after reaching Mandi House. When Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for Delhi Police, pointed to a joint press conference where a statement on 'regime change' was made, Sankaranarayanan replied: 'There is nothing wrong in regime change in a democracy.'
Source: Live Law
The ASG objected, submitting — as the government's case — that regime change can happen by 'votes', not by 'lumpen elements in the nerve of New Delhi'. Sharma further submitted that there were '12 violations' by Bora, that Section 163 BNSS prohibitory orders were in force in the area including Mandi House, and that the magistrate had applied his mind on the basis of a general diary entry, past FIRs and the situation on the streets. These are the police's submissions in court, not findings of the court.
Bora says she called a peaceful gathering at Mandi House at 5 pm on October 16 to unfurl the national flag at Central Park, Connaught Place, as part of protests against the Chief Election Commissioner. She alleges she was detained at around 5:30 pm, taken to an undisclosed location and then to R.K. Puram police station, held overnight and released at 6 am on October 17. The notice, received on October 18, cites alleged sloganeering at Mandi House, repeated protests around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders, and an allegation that she instigated people to join a protest at Connaught Place — claims her petition disputes as vague and factually incorrect.
During the hearing, the court itself probed the procedure, asking whether a magistrate must independently satisfy himself that information received is credible before issuing a Section 126 notice, and remarking that where liberty is curtailed preventively, 'the only safeguard available to a petitioner is procedural', with Article 21 referring to procedure established by law. The court also noted the petitioner's concern that being asked to promise to be 'a good boy' brands a person with stigma, which has a facet in Article 21. The verdict is expected on Friday evening.