Delhi HC Lets Peace-Bond Proceedings Against AISA President Continue After Mandi House Protest, Leaving Bond Decision To Magistrate

Neha, National President of the All India Students’ Association, challenged a notice dated 17 October 2026 issued by the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) under Sections 126 and 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The notice required her to show cause why she should not furnish a personal bond and surety for keeping the peace during the inquiry.

It followed her participation in a protest at Mandi House on 16 October 2026 and referred to alleged protest-related conduct, including activity in areas said to be subject to prohibitory orders.

The SEM’s record included a police kalandara, General Diary entries, details of FIRs and the investigating officer’s submissions.

Sections 126 and 130 BNSS permit an Executive Magistrate, on receiving information and forming an opinion that sufficient grounds exist, to require a person to show cause why a bond should not be ordered to prevent a likely breach of peace; the written order must state the substance of the information received and the bond’s terms.

Proceedings under Chapter IX are preventive, not punitive, and rest on the Magistrate’s subjective satisfaction, but that satisfaction must be based on material and the prescribed procedure.

At the notice stage, writ review ordinarily asks whether any material existed and whether the Magistrate applied his mind; intervention is exceptional, including where there is patent want of jurisdiction, non-application of mind, abuse of process, or a notice founded on no material.

A combined notice and order may suffice if the statutory requirements are met and the substance of the information and reasons are conveyed to the noticee [applying Farhan Nasir Khan v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1777].

Under Section 135(3) BNSS, an interim bond may be directed only after the inquiry has commenced and before it concludes, where immediate measures are necessary, with written reasons and the safeguards identified in Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr, (1970) 3 SCC 746.

The Court found that the SEM had considered the kalandara, related General Diary entries and other supporting material, and had recorded reasons for initiating proceedings.

Given that record, the notice was not based on no material, and the Court would not reassess the sufficiency of the material as if sitting in the SEM’s place.

The notice stated the substance of the allegations and the apprehended breach of peace; a separate Section 130 order was not necessary where the combined notice met the statutory requirements.

The Court therefore declined to quash the notice at this preliminary stage, while distinguishing that conclusion from any decision on whether a bond should ultimately be required.

It left the question of requiring a bond to the SEM, directing that the SEM independently assess the material, provide the relied-on material to the Petitioner, comply with natural justice, and apply the statutory and judicial safeguards governing an interim bond.