Neha Bora denies role in CJP protest call, challenges Delhi Police notice in High Court

AISA president Neha Bora told the Delhi High Court on Thursday (October 22) that she had no role to play in the separate CJP protest at Connaught Place on October 16. She has approached the court against a Delhi Police notice asking her to furnish a personal bond of Rs 10,000.

Appearing for Bora, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan questioned the legality of both her detention and the police notice, calling them "completely illegal". He said Bora had been organising a separate protest at Mandi House.

“She is not involved with the CP Central Park call, and she was dealing with her own call at Mandi House,” the advocate told the High Court, the Hindustan Times reported.

Police notice cites protests and alleged sloganeering

The notice was issued on October 17, the day Bora was released after being detained during a flag march. A New Delhi district police officer acting as the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) directed her to appear on Monday and execute the bond.

Also Read: Neha Bora moves Delhi HC against police notice to execute ‘peace’ bond

Police cited alleged sloganeering at Mandi House, repeated protests near Jantar Mantar despite restrictions under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and an allegation that Bora had instigated people to join a protest at Connaught Place.

Petition challenges legality of detention, bond order

Bora's petition, filed through advocate Abhik Chimni, describes the notice as ambiguous and factually incorrect. It argues that the order provides no material to establish a likelihood of breach of peace and violates Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Sankaranarayanan told the court that Bora was detained within 10 to 15 minutes of reaching Mandi House on October 16. Referring to a social media post announcing a gathering there, he said it merely stated, "see you today at 5 PM."

Also Read: Meet the faces of India’s Gen Z protest movement

"The original order passed did not include any of these areas," the lawyer said, referring to the grounds later cited in the notice.

Bora’s petition also argues that the proceedings misuse preventive powers to curb peaceful dissent. It challenges the SEM's order under Section 126 of the BNSS, which allows authorities to seek a bond where credible information points to a possible breach of peace.