‘Nothing wrong with regime change’, Neha Bora tells Delhi HC, cops counter her

Neha Bora was detained during a protest at Mandi House last week and released after approximately 12 hours.

There is “nothing wrong" in regime change in a democracy, All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora's lawyer told the Delhi High Court on Thursday. The submissions came after the Delhi Police's counsel alleged she was part of a gathering where people called for a change in government.

The court was hearing her plea challenging a Delhi Police notice asking her to furnish a ₹10,000 “peace bond”. During the hearing, the Delhi Police alleged that Bora was part of a gathering where activist Prashant Bhushan called for “regime change.”

As Bora's lawyer defended the call for a regime change, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Delhi Police, said, “Regime change will happen by votes, not by lumpen elements congregating in New Delhi.”

ALSO READ | 'Not involved with CJP's protest call': Neha Bora to Delhi HC on Oct 16 detention

The Delhi High Court later reserved its verdict on Bora’s plea. Justice Prasad said the order would be pronounced at 6 pm on Friday.

The petition challenges a notice issued by a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) in New Delhi district on October 17, the day Bora was released after being detained during a protest on October 16. The notice directed her to appear before the magistrate and execute a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety.

Delhi Police cites alleged repeated violations

During the hearing, Sharma argued that the notice was issued after an independent assessment of the material available to the authorities.

The ASG told the court that the complete records had been placed before the magistrate before the notice was issued. He alleged that Bora had repeatedly violated restrictions, citing 12 instances of violations.

The law officer also alleged that Bora was part of a gathering where statements calling for regime change were made alongside Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders and activist Prashant Bhushan.

ALSO READ | AISA president Neha Bora moves Delhi HC, challenges police notice to execute bond

“There is nothing wrong in regime change in a democracy,” Bora’s counsel, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, argued. Sharma opposed the submission, reiterating that regime change must happen through votes and not through “lumpen elements” gathering in New Delhi.

The ASG said that the case involved substantial material and that the proceedings were preventive in nature, aimed at maintaining public peace. He said the authorities had considered information from a police sub-inspector, past FIRs and the prevailing situation before issuing the notice.

Sharma also disputed Bora’s contention that prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) were not in force in the relevant area. He alleged that police personnel were outnumbered during the incident and that Bora did not stop when asked to do so.

The court questioned whether there was material beyond the kalandra -- a police report placed before the magistrate in preventive proceedings -- to support the notice. The ASG subsequently handed over additional documents to the bench.

ALSO READ | Who is Neha Bora? AISA president at centre of anti-CEC, SIR protests breaking internet

The court also asked whether a lawyer could represent Bora before the magistrate. Sharma said she could appear herself, attend with a lawyer or send a lawyer to represent her.

The Delhi Police maintained that the notice had not itself resulted in a bond being executed or any penal consequences being imposed, and that Bora had been given the option of appearing through counsel.

Court flags implications for personal liberty

During the hearing, the bench raised concerns about the stigma attached to proceedings that require a person to furnish a bond for good behaviour.

The court observed that Bora’s grievance stemmed from being treated as someone likely to disturb the peace and being asked to undertake to behave properly even before the proceedings had concluded.

“Concern of the petitioner is that I am already branded as a bad boy and asked to say you shall be a good boy,” the bench observed, as per LiveLaw.

Why Neha Bora challenged the notice

In her petition, filed through advocate Abhik Chimni, Neha Bora argued that the notice was ambiguous, factually incorrect and violated her fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

She contended that the notice did not provide sufficient material to establish the likelihood of a breach of peace. It also did not specify the period, occasion or event in connection with which such a breach was apprehended, her petition said.