Delhi HC Rejects AISA President Neha’s Plea Against BNSS Peace-Bond Notice [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition by Neha, National President of the All India Students’ Association (AISA), seeking to quash a notice dated 17.10.2026 issued by the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM), New Delhi District, under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, asking her to show cause why she should not execute a bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety for keeping the peace.

Holding that at this stage the Court can only see whether there was material before the SEM and whether he applied his mind, Justice Subramonium Prasad found the notice met the requirements of Chapter IX of the BNSS, while directing that the State supply all material relied upon and that natural justice be observed.

The petitioner had posted on Instagram on 16.10.2026, inviting people to Mandi House at 5 PM, saying that “Central Delhi has become Jantar Mantar”. She was detained that evening and released on 17.10.2026, the day the notice was issued. The notice alleged that she had created nuisance by shouting loudly at Mandi House, had been involved in repeated protests around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS, and had instigated people to join an unauthorised demonstration at Central Park, Connaught Place, and hoisted the national flag without permission.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for the petitioner, argued that the notice mechanically reproduced the ingredients of Section 126, that the SEM had not independently enquired and acted only on a police kalandara on the directions of “senior officers”, that the material was hearsay, that Mandi House was outside the Section 163 order, and that peaceful protest cannot breach peace. He relied on Madhu Limaye v. SDM, Monghyr (1970) 3 SCC 746, and decisions of the Delhi High Court including Aldanish Rein and Asha Pant.

ASG Chetan Sharma, for the State, submitted that the SEM had examined the kalandara and supporting material and heard the investigating officer, SI Vaishali Tushir, before forming a subjective opinion, that the petitioner had remedies under Sections 135 to 137 of the BNSS, and that a Section 163 order dated 24.08.2026 covered the Barakhamba Road and Tilak Marg police stations, including Mandi House. According to the kalandara, she came to Mandi House roundabout at about 5:10 PM with 40 to 50 protesters and kept advancing despite repeated loudspeaker warnings.

On the law, the Court reiterated that proceedings under Chapter IX “are preventive and not punitive in nature”, relying on Prakash Chand Sachdeva v. State (1994) 1 SCC 471. A combined reading of Sections 126 and 130 requires some information, whose substance shows a likelihood of breach of peace, and an opinion of the SEM that there are sufficient grounds to proceed. The Court held that at the notice stage its enquiry is limited:

“The Court, at this stage, does not sit on the arm-chair of the SEM to decide as to whether the material/information is sufficient or not and unless it is a case of nil material, which would shock the conscience of the Court, the Writ Court at the stage of issuance of a show cause notice, will not interfere.”

On the facts, the Court found that the SEM’s order of 17.10.2026 recorded that he had gone through the police report, heard the investigating officer and recorded his satisfaction. The kalandara was backed by three General Diary entries, and the material showed six FIRs across three police stations in which the petitioner was mentioned. It also noted that the area is a high-footfall commercial zone with important roads, hotels, banks and offices.

The notice, the Court held, need not read like a judgment and need only set out the substance of the information and the opinion formed. Agreeing with the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Farhan Nasir Khan v. State of Maharashtra (2019), it held that a separate Section 126 notice and Section 130 order are unnecessary if one composite notice meets both requirements. The Court rejected the contention on the Section 163 order, noting the order of 24.08.2026 covered Mandi House.

The petitioner’s authorities were distinguished: Sumitra Dhal v. State of Odisha, where the notice disclosed no factual basis, and Anuj Suhag v. State (NCT of Delhi), which rested on a solitary incident. The Court observed that proceedings turn “not on the number of incidents, but the nature of the act and the attendant circumstances,” and that “even one incident is sufficient” if it suggests an apprehension of further breach. It held that the safeguards of Madhu Limaye had not been violated at this stage.

The Court, however, directed the State to give the petitioner all material to be relied upon at the enquiry, and directed the SEM to ensure natural justice before any bond order. It reminded the SEM to keep Section 135 in mind, which permits a bond only after the enquiry has commenced and before it is complete, if immediate measures are necessary, and to follow the safeguards in Madhu Limaye and Aldanish Rein when passing any Section 135(3) order. 

It clarified that all observations are limited to Article 226 interference at the show-cause stage, leaving the petitioner free to challenge later orders.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Abhik Chimni, Mr. Pranjal Abrol and other Advocates.

For the Respondent (State NCT of Delhi): Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG, with Mr. Ashish K. Dixit, CGSC, and other Advocates.

For the Intervenor: Mr. Jai Anant Dehadrai, Ms. Yashvi Swani, Mr. Ram P. Dubey and Mr. Apurva Chatterji, Advocates.

Case Title: Neha vs. The State NCT of Delhi, W.P.(CRL) 3342/2026

[Read Judgment]