Bora sought the quashing of the notice claiming, inter alia, the lack of sufficient material to warrant the issuance of notice, non-application of mind by the concerned SEM, and non-violation of prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Bora, claimed that there was not enough material available before the SEM to apprehend that she would commit a breach of peace and that the SEM did not conduct a preliminary inquiry, which, according to him, was required under the law, before serving the notice.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, representing the Delhi Police, countered Bora’s plea by submitting that there was sufficient material available before the magistrate to form an opinion that there is an apprehension of breach of
peace and disturbance of public tranquillity. He further submitted that the petition was not maintainable at this stage as the notice is just a preliminary stage of proceedings before the SEM, wherein the petitioner would subsequently be heard and granted the opportunity to challenge the notice.
The High Court dismissed Bora’s petition, holding that there was sufficient material available before the magistrate, including 3 General Diary entries, six FIRs against Bora, and the recordings in Kalandra to issue a notice against her under Section 126 of the BNSS.
“A perusal of the material on record shows that there are as many as six (06) FIRs, apart from the information under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act, which finds mention of the Petitioner,” a Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad noted in the judgment.
The High Court also observed that the SEM did not merely rely on hearsay material, as alleged by Bora, but proceeded on the basis of the documentary material produced before him. The High Court also rejected Bora’s contention that no prohibitory orders were in place at Mandi House, where she had gathered with 40-50 protestors and started marching towards the Barakhamba Road raising slogans. ASG Chetan Sharma informed the court that she was repeatedly warned by the police on loudspeakers about the imposition of Section 163 BNSS in the area, but she continued with the demonstration.
The High Court pointed out that the SEM’s notice mentions that the far-left student leader created a nuisance at Mandi House and instigated people to take part in an unauthorised demonstration at Central Park in Connaught Place.
“In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the Impugned Notice meets the requirements of a show cause notice under Chapter IX of the BNSS. However, it is always open to the Petitioner to raise a challenge at an appropriate stage,” the High Court held. The Court directed the SEM to keep all legal safeguards in mind while passing any further orders in the proceedings before him.
Neha Bora was detained by the Delhi Police from Mandi House on October 16, 2026, and was released the next day on October 17, 2026. The same day, she received a notice from the SEM to show cause as to why she may not be required to execute a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount for Rs.10,000/- under Section 135(3) of the BNSS for breach of peace for the period of enquiry.
The AISA president has been at the forefront of the demonstrations organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and the Opposition parties this month in the name of opposing the electoral revision undertaken by the Election Commission. She has also been a vocal supporter of the opposition’s regime change attempts against the Modi government.
