The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to interfere with the preventive proceedings initiated against All India Students' Association (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, ANI reported. Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed Bora's petition challenging the notice, holding: “The Impugned Notice meets the requirements of a show cause notice under Chapter IX of the BNSS.”
The notice, issued by the SEM on October 17, 2026 under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), asked Bora 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 court recorded that the SEM's order was based on a kalandra submitted by the police along with supporting material, and on the submission of Sub-Inspector Vaishali Tushir, before the magistrate concluded there were sufficient grounds to initiate preventive proceedings, ANI reported.
According to the police report cited by the court, Bora had allegedly participated in protest-related activities despite prohibitory orders and called people to gather at Mandi House on October 16, and had allegedly been involved in efforts to mobilise people for an unauthorised demonstration at Central Park, Connaught Place, with an apprehension of a breach of public peace — these are the police's allegations, which Bora has disputed. Bora was detained on October 16 after she posted on Instagram inviting people to gather at Mandi House at 5 pm, and was released the following day, when the SEM issued the notice, ANI reported.
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; her plea also described the action as an attempt to suppress peaceful dissent, The Raisina Hills reported. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Bora, argued that her calls had been for peaceful protests and that the allegations concerning the Connaught Place gathering were factually incorrect. 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 its opinion.
While dismissing the plea, the High Court directed that all the material relied upon be furnished to Bora, and clarified that the SEM must independently assess the material before deciding whether she should be required to furnish a bond, ANI and The Raisina Hills reported. Referring to Section 135(3) of the BNSS, the court left it open to the SEM to decide whether to insist on a bond at the initial stage of the inquiry, keeping in view the safeguards in Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr and Aldanish Rein v. State (NCT of Delhi). The court said its observations were confined to the notice stage under Article 226, and that Bora remains at liberty to pursue remedies available under law after the final order in the inquiry.