SEM Had Sufficient Material, Case Not Based Merely On Hearsay: Delhi HC Rejects Neha Bora's Plea Against Peace-Bond Notice

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by All India Students Association (AISA) president Neha Bora challenging a notice issued by the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) requiring her to show cause why she should not furnish a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during an inquiry.

Justice Subramonium Prasad held that sufficient material was available before the SEM to initiate preventive proceedings against Bora under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The Court noted that the SEM had examined three General Diary entries, the police Kalandara dated October 17, 2026, and three witnesses before forming an opinion that proceedings were warranted.

"The present case is not based merely on hearsay material" the Court observed, adding that it could not substitute its own conclusion for the SEM’s assessment of the material at the stage of issuance of a show-cause notice.

The Court, however, clarified that the SEM must adhere to the safeguards governing preventive proceedings and independently consider whether Bora should be required to furnish a bond at the outset of the inquiry.

"The SEM must necessarily keep in mind the import of Section 135 of the BNSS" Justice Prasad said, leaving it open to the magistrate to decide whether a bond should be insisted upon at the first instance, given that Section 135(3) contemplates such a direction where an apprehension of breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity arises after the inquiry has commenced but before it concludes.

The Court also directed that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr and by the Delhi High Court in Aldanish Rein v. State (NCT of Delhi) must be followed at subsequent stages of the proceedings.

Court says writ interference at show-cause stage is limited

The Court explained that proceedings under Chapter IX of the BNSS are preventive, rather than punitive, and are intended to avert a possible breach of peace instead of taking action only after an incident has occurred.

It held that, at the stage of a show-cause notice, the writ court’s examination is limited to whether any material or information existed before the SEM and whether the magistrate applied his mind to it. The High Court would not ordinarily assess the sufficiency of that material unless the case involved a complete absence of material that would shock the Court’s conscience.

In Bora’s case, the Court found that the SEM had considered the Kalandara, which contained three General Diary entries relating to different dates and events, along with the accompanying material and the statements of three witnesses.

"All this is purely based on the subjective satisfaction of the SEM. Even one incident is sufficient for initiating proceedings under Chapter IX of the BNSS, if the circumstances so suggest that there is an apprehension that such a person will indulge in further incidents of the same nature which can breach peace and disturb public tranquillity" the Court clarified.

It noted that in the present case, it had been recorded that the Petitioner had breached the orders under Section 163 of the BNSS despite being warned.

Justice Prasad, however, did not comment any further on the facts noting that it could adversely affect the rights of the Petitioner and the Respondent/State.

Justice Prasad clarified that he made these observations only to consider as to whether there was sufficient material for the SEM to arrive at a subjective satisfaction to proceed under Chapter IX of the BNSS.

"As such, this Court cannot sit in the armchair of the SEM to test the subjective satisfaction of the sufficiency of material and as to whether the opinion has been correctly been arrived at by the SEM or not" he said

SEM must consider safeguards before insisting on bond

While dismissing the petition, the High Court emphasised that the dismissal did not dispense with the procedural safeguards applicable during the inquiry.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Madhu Limaye, the Court noted that an interim bond under Section 135(3) BNSS cannot be treated as an automatic consequence of the issuance of a show-cause notice.

The provision contemplates a direction to furnish a bond during the inquiry where immediate measures are considered necessary to prevent a breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity, with reasons recorded in writing.

The Court left it open to the SEM to decide whether a bond could be insisted upon at the initial stage, while requiring the magistrate to take into account the safeguards laid down in Madhu Limaye and Aldanish Rein.

It further clarified that Bora would have opportunities to pursue remedies available under law at different stages of the inquiry, including after a final order is passed.

The Court made clear that its observations were confined to the scope of judicial interference under Article 226 of the Constitution at the stage of issuance of the show-cause notice. The SEM would still be required to independently assess the material and arrive at a conclusion on whether a personal bond or bail bond was necessary.

With these observations, the High Court dismissed Bora’s writ petition and the pending applications.