The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a plea by All India Students Association (AISA) national president Neha Bora challenging a notice requiring her to execute a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety to maintain peace during an inquiry arising from her detention during a protest against Chief Election Commissioner on October 16.Justice Subramonium Prasad, while pronouncing the order, said there were “adequate safeguards” and directed the Special Executive Magistrate “to take care” and provide all material to Bora before passing any order in the inquiry. Bora had challenged an October 17 notice issued by the Special Executive Magistrate under Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS, read with Section 135(3). The notice followed her detention at Mandi House during a protest.The case arose from a protest call made by Bora for a gathering at Mandi House at 5 pm on October 16 to unfurl the national flag at Central Park in Connaught Place as part of protests against the CEC. She alleged that she was detained around 5.30 pm, taken to an undisclosed location and later to RK Puram police station, where she was held overnight and released at 6 am on October 17.The notice, which she received on October 18, cited alleged sloganeering at Mandi House, repeated protests around Jantar Mantar despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, and an allegation that she had instigated people to participate in a protest at Connaught Place on October 16.Her petition argued that the notice did not disclose material showing a likelihood of breach of peace, which it said was necessary for initiating preventive proceedings under Section 126. It sought quashing of the notice and proceedings arising from it, besides a direction restraining the authorities from taking coercive action against her.Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Bora, said the October 16 protest was peaceful and that she had never called for violence. He also argued that there was nothing wrong in seeking a regime change in a democracy.Sankaranarayanan contended that the notice was mechanical and argued that even for seeking an interim bond, a preliminary inquiry was essential before seeking a response on the interim bond.Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma opposed the plea, submitting that Section 126 provides a wide band of subjective satisfaction, which need not translate itself into evidence or fact but should reflect the information received.The court, while dismissing Bora’s plea, emphasised the safeguards available in the process and the requirement that the Special Executive Magistrate provide the material to her before proceeding with the inquiry.