There Was Sufficient Material Before Magistrate For Notice U/S 126 BNSS: Delhi High Court Dismisses AISA President Neha Bora’s Plea
The Bench noted that the proceedings to keep peace are preventive, not punitive, and even one incident may suffice; Court directed SEM to share material with petitioner and observe natural justice.
The Delhi High Court has held that there was sufficient material before the Magistrate for action under Section 126 of the BNSS, while dismissing the writ petition of Neha Bora, National President of the All India Students’ Association. The Court noted that a writ court will not interfere with a Chapter IX show cause notice unless it is a case of nil material that shocks its conscience.
The Court observed that Chapter IX proceedings are preventive and not punitive, resting on the Magistrate’s subjective satisfaction. Even a single incident can justify action if the circumstances suggest an apprehension of further breach of peace. It nonetheless directed the State to give the petitioner all material relied upon and the Magistrate to observe natural justice.
A Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed, “Though this Court has also been handed over other material regarding the acts of the Petitioner which states that there are videos, they are not being referred to because it is not clear as to whether this material was produced before the SEM when he formed an opinion to proceed against the Petitioner. Suffice it to say that in the opinion of this Court, there was sufficient material before the Magistrate before action has been taken under Section 126 of the BNSS”.
“…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”, the Bench said.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan for the petitioner and Chetan Sharma, ASG appeared for the respondents.
During October 2026 protests in Delhi over the Election Commission and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, Bora posted on Instagram on October 16, 2026, inviting people to Mandi House. She was detained that evening and released the next day.
On October 17, 2026, the Special Executive Magistrate, acting on a kalandara from SI Vaishali Tushir, issued a composite notice under Sections 126 and 130 BNSS. It asked her to show cause why she should not execute a Rs. 10,000 personal bond with one surety under Section 135(3). She was granted time on health grounds and called to appear on October 24, 2026. She challenged the notice as a mechanical reproduction of the statute, resting on hearsay and a kalandara alone, and argued that Mandi House was outside the Section 163 prohibitory order.
Rejecting these contentions, the Court noted that the Magistrate’s order recorded his perusal of the kalandara and his hearing of the investigating officer. The material included three General Diary entries and six FIRs. A prohibitory order of August 24, 2026 covered Mandi House.
“A combined reading of Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS postulates that there has to be some information; that substance of information must show that such person is likely to commit breach of peace or disturb the public tranquillity or do a wrongful act that would probably occasion a breach of peace or disturb the public tranquillity; and if the opinion of the SEM based on such information is that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding under Chapter IX of the BNSS, then he will issue a Show Cause Notice as to why such person should not be ordered to execute a bond or a bail bond for such period not exceeding one year, as the SEM deems fit. Since the purport of Chapter IX of the BNSS is preventive in nature and not punitive, the object of the provisions is to prevent breach of peace and take such preventive steps to ensure that peace and tranquillity in the area is not disturbed. As such, the aim is not to take action after an incident has happened, but to prevent such an incident from happening. Therefore, at the stage where only a notice has been issued, enquiry of the Writ Court will be only be limited to examine as to whether there was any material/information before the SEM at all and whether the SEM applied its mind on such material/information received by him, for proceeding under Chapter IX of the BNSS…”, the Bench noted further.
“…The present case is not based merely on hearsay material, as contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, but is also based on the kalandara dated 17.10.2026, which consists of the three (03) general diary entries registered at different Police Stations pertaining to different dates and events. 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”, the Bench noted.
The Court held that a notice need not read like a judgment, and that a common notice can satisfy Sections 126 and 130, following the Bombay High Court Full Bench in Farhan Nasir Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) SCC OnLine Bom 1777. It found Madhu Limaye not violated at this stage and distinguished Sumitra Dhal, Anuj Suhag and Asha Pant. It declined to refer to videos, since it was unclear whether they were before the Magistrate.
The petition was dismissed, but the State must provide the petitioner all material relied upon at the inquiry. The Magistrate must ensure natural justice is not violated before any bond order and should consider Section 135 and Madhu Limaye safeguards before insisting on a bond. The petitioner may raise challenges at the appropriate stage.
Cause Title: Neha v. The State NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:9436)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Advocate, Abhik Chimni, Pranjal Abrol, Ayan Das Gupta, Moksha Sharma, Gurupal Singh, Kartik Venu, Vishal Sinha, Kanish Garg, Indu Mugi C, Aayushman Aggarwal, Advocates.
Respondent: Chetan Sharma, ASG, Ashish K. Dixit, CGSC, Umar Hashmi, Advocates.