New Delhi: All India Students' Association (AISA) National President Neha Bora on Saturday appeared before the SEM Court at Mandir Marg Police Station after the Delhi High Court dismissed Bora’s plea yesterday, challenging the court notice asking them to execute a Rs 10,000 bond with a surety to maintain peace during the inquiry.
During the court proceedings, the SEM Court asked the police to give the documents to Neha Bora's counsel. The Special Executive Magistrate granted time to the counsel to file a reply. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on October 29.
Advocate Abhik Chimni, representing Neha Bora, said that the legal team will analyse all the documents received today and will proceed accordingly. He underlined that anyone who is detained has a right to know what is held against them. They must also have a reasonable opportunity to respond.
"We approached the High Court challenging the show cause notice Neha Bora received. The High Court has dismissed the challenge to the show cause notice. The High Court has laid down certain parameters and tests. One of them was that, in paragraph 38 of the judgment, the High Court has stated that all the material that was relied upon to state that there may be a breach of peace, and all the underlying material relied upon by the SEM, may be provided to us. Today we showed the SEM the judgment, and he has been kind enough to give us all the documents. We will now proceed and see those documents. The next date is on the 29th. The findings in paras 38 and 50, etc., have helped develop the criminal code to ensure that when anybody is detained, they have a right to know what is held against them and they have a reasoned opportunity to reply," she said.
Earlier on Friday, the Delhi High Court refused to interfere with preventive proceedings initiated against the AISA president, holding that the show-cause notice issued to Bora by the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) met the requirements of law and that the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court had not been violated at this stage.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the notice was issued after the SEM considered a police report, accompanying material and the submission of the police officer concerned, and formed an opinion that there were sufficient grounds to initiate proceedings under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The court said the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr had not been violated at the stage under consideration. It dismissed Bora’s petition challenging the notice that required the AISA president to show cause why they should not furnish a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety in a like amount to maintain peace.
The ruling provides judicial backing to the initiation of the preventive proceedings at the notice stage, while leaving the Special Executive Magistrate to independently decide whether a bond is ultimately required.
“The Impugned Notice meets the requirements of a show cause notice under Chapter IX of the BNSS,” the court said, adding that the SEM must ensure compliance with the applicable legal safeguards during subsequent proceedings.
According to the police report, Bora had allegedly participated in protest-related activities despite prohibitory orders and called people to gather at Mandi House on October 16. The police further alleged that Bora had been involved in efforts to mobilise people for an unauthorised demonstration at Central Park, Connaught Place, and that there was apprehension of a breach of public peace and tranquillity.