NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a writ petition filed by AISA leader Neha Bora challenging a notice issued by a Special Executive Magistrate asking her to execute a bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during the period of inquiry.
Justice Subramonium Prasad, while rejecting the petition, issued certain directions to the magistrate, including that all material relied upon in the proceedings be furnished to Bora. “The writ petition is rejected. However, there are certain directions. All the material is to be furnished to her,” the judge said.
Bora had challenged the preventive proceedings initiated against her under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), questioning the legality of the notice and the procedure followed by the authorities. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Bora, submitted that the notice was issued without proper application of mind and contained assertions that were disputed by his client.
He told the court that Bora, an AISA leader involved in public protests, had called for a gathering at Mandi House on October 16 after Jantar Mantar was denotified as a protest site.
The counsel argued that her call was for a peaceful gathering and did not amount to an exhortation to violence or the commission of an offence. He also disputed the suggestion that Bora had called for a gathering at Connaught Place, submitting that the demonstration there had been organised by another group. Sankaranarayanan further questioned the factual basis of certain statements in the notice, including the reference to a proposed hoisting of the national flag without permission. He argued that the notice appeared to reproduce allegations without reflecting an independent assessment by the Special Executive Magistrate.
The counsel also raised concerns over the manner in which the proceedings were initiated, submitting that preventive action affecting an individual must strictly comply with the procedure prescribed by law.
During the hearing, the court examined whether the magistrate had independently assessed the information placed before him and whether the relevant material had been considered in accordance with the statutory framework. (ANI)