'No permission needed to hoist Tricolour’: Neha Bora questions police notice in HC

Bora argued before Justice Subramonium Prasad that citizens do not require permission to hoist the national flag, challenging the police’s allegation that she had done so without valid permission. Her petition seeks to quash the notice and restrain the police from taking coercive action against her.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Bora, argued that the notice issued by the special executive magistrate (SEM) lacked independent application of mind and amounted to a “cut-and-paste job”.

The allegations cited in the notice included shouting loudly at the Mandi House roundabout, participating in protests around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders, instigating people to join an unauthorised demonstration at Central Park in Connaught Place, and hoisting the national flag without valid permission.

“Maybe they need some instruction on law that we don't need permission to hoist the national flag,” Sankaranarayanan said, according to the PTI report.

Delhi HC defers hearing on AISA chief Neha Bora's plea against 'peace' bond to Oct 22

He questioned whether the SEM had independently considered the allegations before issuing the notice and argued that the legal requirements for initiating proceedings had not been met.

“Before you issue such a notice, you need to show the parameters that such a notice should go,” he said, describing the notice as constitutionally flawed.

“I am not on merits. I am only asking for compliance with the law which is not there and this entitles me to come to the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution,” he submitted.

PTI reported that the hearing also saw an exchange over a statement allegedly made at a joint press conference: “yeh regime change ki ladai hai and hum regime change kara ke rahenge” (this is a fight for regime change and we will get the regime changed). Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for Delhi Police, cited the statement during his submissions.

Sankaranarayanan said Bora had not made the remark and argued that there was nothing wrong with seeking a change of regime in a democracy.

Sharma objected, saying, “You were part of that press conference. I will take exception to this. A regime change in a democracy will happen by votes and not by lumpen elements congregating in the nerve of Delhi.”

The court asked the police whether there was any material beyond the “kalandra”, or police report initiating the proceedings, and whether a separate enquiry had been conducted before the notice was issued. It orally asked the police to hold off until it passed its order.

Sharma submitted that there had been 12 violations and that the complete records were available before the SEM, who had independently applied his mind. “It is not a simple case of an innocent woman,” he said. He also offered to make a statement if Bora gave an undertaking not to breach the peace.

AISA's Neha Bora moves Delhi HC against police notice asking her to execute peace bond.

The court observed that Bora’s concern was that she had already been branded a wrongdoer and was being asked to promise good conduct. “I am already branded as a bad boy and I have been asked to say that I shall be a good boy,” the court said, noting that the issue of stigma also had a bearing on Article 21 of the Constitution.

The notice, issued on October 17 under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), directed Bora to appear before the SEM on October 19 and show cause why she should not execute a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety to keep the peace during the enquiry.

Section 126 empowers authorities to seek a bond when there is credible information that a person is likely to breach the peace, disturb public tranquillity or commit an act that could cause such a disturbance.

It is  reported that Bora, who has been at the forefront of protests against alleged irregularities in the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, was preventively detained on October 16 while on her way to join the Cockroach Janta Party’s “Lehra Do Tiranga” march. She was released the following day.

The SEM proceedings stemmed from allegations of sloganeering at Mandi House on October 16, repeated protests around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and efforts to mobilise people for a demonstration at Connaught Place. 

Bora’s petition, settled by lawyer Abhik Chimni, contended that the notice was vague and factually incorrect and that there was no material to establish a likelihood of breach of peace.