Neha Bora says no permission needed to hoist national flag

Neha Bora challenged a police peace-bond notice before the Delhi High Court. The case raises concerns about lawful protest, due process and personal liberty.

In Short

• Court asked police to defer coercive action until Friday's scheduled order
• Police cited twelve alleged violations and records before the magistrate
• Counsel called the notice mechanically issued and unsupported by inquiry

All India Students' Association president Neha Bora told the Delhi High Court that citizens do not need permission to hoist the national flag while challenging a police notice directing her to execute a bond to maintain peace, news agency Press Trust of India reported.

Justice Subramonium Prasad, who heard the matter on Thursday despite the court being closed for the Dussehra vacation, said he would pass an order on Bora's petition on Friday. The court orally asked the police to hold off action until then.

Bora has been at the forefront of protests against alleged irregularities in the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. She has sought the quashing of the notice and directions to the police not to take coercive action against her.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Bora, argued that there was nothing wrong with seeking a change of government in a democracy. He was responding to Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Delhi Police, who referred to material including a joint press conference attended by Bora.

Sharma said a statement made at the press conference was: “Yeh regime change ki ladai hai and hum regime change kara ke rahenge” — this is a fight for regime change and we will get the regime changed. Sankaranarayanan said Bora had not made the statement and added that “there is nothing wrong with regime change in a democracy”.

Sharma objected, saying: “You were part of that press conference. I will take exception to this. A regime change in a democracy will happen by votes and not by lumpen elements congregating in the nerve of Delhi.”

Challenging the notice, Bora's counsel argued that the special executive magistrate had not independently considered the matter and that the notice was issued mechanically as a “cut-and-paste job”.

Quoting the notice, the lawyer said Bora was accused of shouting loudly during a protest at the Mandi House roundabout, taking part in protests in and around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders, encouraging people to join an unauthorised demonstration at Central Park in Connaught Place and hoisting the national flag without valid permission.

“Maybe they need some instruction on law that we don't need permission to hoist the national flag,” the lawyer said. The notice stated that there was a possibility of a breach of public peace and tranquillity within the jurisdiction of the magistrate's court.

Bora argued that the notice did not meet the requirements of the law. Her counsel said an inquiry was necessary even before an interim bond could be sought and that the magistrate could not directly ask her to furnish the bond. “Before you issue such a notice, you need to show the parameters that such a notice should go,” he said, describing the notice as constitutionally and legally flawed.

“I am not on merits. I am only asking for compliance with the law which is not there and this entitles me to come to the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution,” the lawyer said.

During the hearing, the court asked the police whether there was any material or inquiry apart from the “kalandra” before the notice was issued. Sharma said he was prepared to assure the court that the police would hold off action if Bora gave an undertaking that she would not breach the peace.

The court said Bora's concern was that she had already been branded a wrongdoer and asked to promise good conduct. “It is that stigma which a person has which has led to this proceeding. It has a facet in Article 21,” the court said.

Sharma said there were 12 violations involving Bora, complete records were available with the magistrate and the notice had been issued after independent consideration. “It is not a simple case of an innocent woman,” he said, according to PTI.

The notice was issued on October 17 under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. It directed Bora to appear before the special executive magistrate on October 19 and explain why she should not execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during the inquiry.

Section 126 allows a special executive magistrate to require such a bond if credible information indicates that a person is likely to breach the peace, disturb public tranquillity or commit an act that may cause disturbance.

Bora was taken into preventive detention on October 16 while on her way to join the Cockroach Janta Party's “Lehra Do Tiranga” march. She was released on October 17.

In her petition, settled by lawyer Abhik Chimni, Bora said the notice was vague and factually incorrect and contained no material to support the claim that she was likely to breach the peace. The proceedings are based on allegations that she raised slogans at Mandi House on October 16, repeatedly protested around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and encouraged people to join a demonstration at Connaught Place that day.

The dispute centres on Bora's challenge to the legality of the peace-bond notice and the police allegations against her. The Delhi High Court is scheduled to pass its order on Friday.

- Ends