Nothing wrong with regime change: Neha Bora vs Centre in HC over peace bonds

Neha Bora challenged a police peace-bond notice in the Delhi High Court, questioning rights for democratic protest and hoisting the national flag.

In Short

• Neha Bora challenges Rs 10,000 peace bond before Delhi HC
• Bora's lawyer says nothing wrong in seeking regime change in democracy
• Government says regime change only via votes, not protests

All India Students' Association (AISA) national president Neha Bora on Thursday told the Delhi High Court that seeking a change of regime was not wrong in a democracy, while challenging a Rs 10,000 peace bonds. The Centre opposed her argument, through her lawyer, saying governments could be changed only through votes and not by "lumpen elements in the nerve of New Delhi".

The arguments were made during the hearing of Bora's plea challenging a notice issued by a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM), directing her to execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during an enquiry following her participation in the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP)'s 'Lehra Do Tiranga' protest on October 16.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Delhi Police and the Centre, referred to a press meeting where it was mentioned, "This is a fight for regime change and we will ensure that the regime is changed." He argued Bora was part of the same gathering and said that the proceedings against her were not initiated without a basis.

To this, the AISA leader's advocate, Sankaranarayanan, argued, "there is nothing wrong with regime change in a democracy".

The ASG countered the remarks and said that regime change can happen by "votes" not by "lumpen elements in the nerve of New Delhi".

He also alleged that Bora had engaged in "complete violations, one after another, 12 times".

Sharma further argued that the SEM had applied his mind twice before issuing the notice and had examined what he described as “overwhelming” material. He submitted that the SEM issued the notice only after cross-checking the information provided by the investigating officer.

Advocate Sankaranarayanan, meanwhile, questioned the notice's reference to the alleged hoisting of the national flag without permission.

"Question is does this (notice) have substance? We don't need permission to hoist the national flag. They need a class on law," the senior advocate argued before Justice Subramonium Prasad.

After hearing the parties for more than two-and-a-half hours, Justice Subramonium Prasad reserved the verdict and said the order would be pronounced on Friday at 6 pm.

WHAT IS THE CASE ABOUT?

Bora has approached the High Court seeking the quashing of an October 17 notice issued by the SEM under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), read with Section 135(3) of the law.

The notice directed her to appear before the SEM and show cause why she should not execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during the enquiry.

Bora has also sought the cancelling of proceedings arising from the notice and a direction restraining the authorities from taking coercive action against her.

The AISA president has been at the forefront of protests against alleged irregularities in the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

According to her petition, she had called for a peaceful gathering at Mandi House at 5 pm on October 16. The gathering was intended to unfurl the national flag at Central Park in Connaught Place as part of protests against the Chief Election Commissioner.

Bora alleged that she was detained at around 5.30 pm while participating in the protest, taken to an undisclosed location and subsequently brought to the RK Puram police station. She claimed that she was held overnight and released at 6 am on October 17.

She received the notice on October 18, according to the petition.

The notice cited alleged sloganeering at Mandi House, repeated protests around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS and allegations that Bora had instigated people to participate in the October 16 protest at Connaught Place.

Bora has challenged the notice on the ground that it does not disclose material establishing a likelihood of a breach of peace, which she contends is a necessary precondition for initiating preventive proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS.

- Ends