New Delhi: All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora on Saturday said she would not sign a peace bond before a special executive magistrate, questioning the grounds for initiating preventive proceedings against her. Her statement came a day after the Delhi High Court dismissed her plea challenging a police notice that directed her to furnish a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety.
Addressing a press conference at the CPI(ML) Liberation Parliamentary office in New Delhi, Bora argued that peaceful demonstrations are a democratic right and should not be treated as a threat to public order. She questioned the purpose of the notice, asking, “Whose peace am I being asked to keep?”
The dispute follows her detention by Delhi Police on October 16, when she joined the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march in the national capital. The demonstration was part of protests demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The police issued the notice on October 17 under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), directing Bora to appear before a special executive magistrate on October 19. She was asked to show cause as to why she should not execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety for keeping the peace during the period of inquiry.
Bora challenged the notice before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the preventive proceedings amounted to an attempt to curb peaceful dissent. After the court dismissed her plea on Friday, she reiterated that questioning the government and expressing disagreement are fundamental aspects of democracy.
Bora questions purpose of peace bond
Speaking to reporters, Bora questioned how raising concerns about government decisions could be interpreted as a threat to peace. She maintained that peaceful protests and public demonstrations are legitimate democratic activities and should not automatically invite preventive action.
“If we do not ask the government any questions, whose peace are we keeping?” she asked.
Her remarks focused on the distinction between maintaining public order and restricting political expression. Bora argued that citizens and student organisations must be able to question those in power without their actions being viewed as a potential disturbance.
She also made it clear that she would not sign the peace bond sought by the authorities. Her position came amid the ongoing dispute over the police notice and the High Court’s dismissal of her challenge.
The notice required her to explain why she should not be directed to furnish the bond and surety. Such proceedings are preventive in nature, with the stated objective of maintaining peace during an inquiry. In Bora’s case, however, she has questioned the basis for applying the measure to her participation in a protest.
The issue has brought attention to the use of preventive proceedings in situations involving demonstrations and political dissent. Bora’s objections centre on whether peaceful opposition to government actions should be treated as a circumstance warranting such restrictions.
Police notice follows ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march
The events leading to the notice began on October 16, when Delhi Police detained Bora as she joined the ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march in the capital.
The demonstration was linked to protests seeking the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The allegations were raised by protesters, and the notice followed Bora’s participation in the march.
On October 17, the police issued a notice under Section 126 of the BNSS, asking her to appear before a special executive magistrate on October 19. The notice called on her to show cause as to why she should not execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety to keep the peace during the inquiry period.
The notice placed Bora in preventive proceedings rather than merely addressing the circumstances of her detention during the march. She subsequently approached the Delhi High Court, challenging the action and questioning whether the authorities had adequately established a likelihood of a breach of peace.
The sequence of events has become central to her argument that peaceful political participation should not be treated as a threat to public order without sufficient grounds.
Delhi High Court dismisses Bora’s plea
Bora’s challenge to the police notice was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on Friday. The dismissal came a day before she publicly declared that she would not sign the bond.
In her challenge, Bora described the preventive proceedings as an attempt to suppress peaceful dissent. She argued that the notice did not adequately establish the likelihood of a breach of peace, questioning the justification for requiring her to furnish the bond.
The court’s dismissal of her plea was a key development in the dispute, but the information available in the report does not provide the detailed reasoning behind the decision. The grounds cited by Bora in challenging the notice should therefore be distinguished from the court’s order.
Following the dismissal, Bora continued to contest the rationale for the proceedings in her public remarks. Her refusal to sign the bond signals that her objections remain focused on the use of preventive measures in connection with peaceful demonstrations.
The case also raises questions about how authorities assess potential breaches of peace in the context of protests. While preventive action is intended to avert disturbances, Bora has argued that the process should not be used to discourage citizens from expressing disagreement with the government.
Student leader stresses right to dissent
Bora said the campaign against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar must not result in the right to dissent being labelled a threat to peace, regardless of how the political dispute develops.
Her remarks linked the immediate legal dispute to a broader argument about democratic participation. She maintained that citizens must retain the ability to question official decisions, criticise those in power and take part in peaceful demonstrations.
The AISA president’s position is that opposition to government actions and alleged irregularities in electoral processes should be addressed without treating peaceful expression itself as a public-order problem.
The protest surrounding the SIR process has placed electoral roll revision and the role of the Chief Election Commissioner at the centre of the demonstrators’ demands. The allegations against Kumar remain allegations raised by protesters, while Bora’s legal challenge concerns the police notice and the preventive proceedings initiated against her.
Her statement at the CPI(ML) Liberation Parliamentary office reiterated that democratic opposition should not be equated with unlawful conduct simply because it challenges those in authority.
Debate over preventive action and peaceful protests
The dispute involving Bora highlights the tension between preventive measures intended to maintain public order and the protection of peaceful political expression.
The police notice asked her to appear before a special executive magistrate and explain why a bond should not be required. Bora, in turn, argued that the notice did not establish a sufficient likelihood of a breach of peace and that the proceedings risked curbing her democratic rights.
Her refusal to sign the bond follows the High Court’s dismissal of her plea, leaving the dispute centred on the preventive action and her objections to its basis.
For Bora, the issue extends beyond the financial value of the bond. Her public remarks question whether participation in peaceful demonstrations and criticism of government decisions can be treated as reasons to impose preventive restrictions.
The case has drawn attention to the importance of distinguishing allegations, police action and judicial decisions when assessing disputes involving protests. While the High Court has dismissed Bora’s challenge, the detailed reasoning for its decision is not contained in the report.
Bora has maintained that peaceful dissent must remain an essential part of democratic life and that questioning the government should not, by itself, be considered a threat to peace.