Pronouncing the decision, Justice Subramonium Prasad said, “I am dismissing this writ petition at this stage.”
The ruling means that Bora’s challenge to the SEM Court notice has been rejected, while the magistrate must comply with the directions issued by the High Court.
Bora received the SEM Court notice during a protest march against the Election Commission. The notice required her to appear before the magistrate and furnish a peace bond of ₹10,000 to maintain peace. She subsequently challenged the notice before the Delhi High Court, but her petition was dismissed.
Bora was taken into custody on October 16 while she was on her way to participate in the ‘Lahra Do Tiranga’ march organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP). She was released the following day, October 17.
When Can a Peace Bond Be Imposed?
Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) authorises a Special Executive Magistrate to require a person to execute a bond for keeping the peace when there is credible information that the person is likely to breach the peace, disturb public tranquillity or commit an act that could cause a disturbance.
In such circumstances, the person concerned is served a notice and asked to explain why they should not be ordered to furnish a bond for maintaining peace for a specified period. The maximum duration of a peace bond can be one year.
What Is a Peace Bond?
The provision for a peace bond is contained in Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It falls under Chapter IX of the BNSS and is intended as a preventive measure rather than a punishment for an offence.
When the administration believes that a person’s activities could disrupt public peace, the person may be required to give a written undertaking to maintain peace for a specified period. This undertaking is known as a peace bond.
What Does Furnishing a Peace Bond Mean?
Furnishing a peace bond does not mean that the person concerned loses all their rights. However, the person must comply with the conditions applicable to the bond.
Whether a protest is prohibited depends on the orders applicable to the particular location and the relevant laws in force. Similarly, whether a person has violated the conditions of a peace bond must be determined on the basis of the actual documents and the circumstances of the case.
What Happens If a Person Refuses to Sign a Peace Bond?
Under Section 136(3) of the BNSS, if a person refuses to furnish a peace bond or fails to provide the surety amount required by the magistrate, they may be detained. The magistrate may send the person to judicial custody until they execute the bond or the inquiry is completed.
The maximum time limit for completing the related inquiry is six months.
What Happens If a Peace Bond Is Violated?
Under Section 141(1)(b) of the BNSS, if the magistrate is satisfied that a person has violated the conditions of a peace bond, the magistrate may order the person’s arrest and imprisonment.
Additionally, if the police believe that a person is about to commit a cognisable offence, they may take the person into preventive custody again under Section 170 of the BNSS.
If a violation of the peace bond is established, the magistrate may order the person to remain in prison for the unexpired period of the bond under Section 141(1)(b).
Who Are Special Executive Magistrates?
Magistrates in the judiciary are distinct from Special Executive Magistrates, who function under the government and administration.
In Delhi, police officers of the Assistant Commissioner rank have been granted the powers of Special Executive Magistrates. This arrangement can create situations during protests in which the police arrest a person, the police themselves act as complainants, and a police officer functioning as an SEM decides whether the person should be sent to jail.
Delhi High Court Had Previously Raised Concerns
In a 2018 judgment, the Delhi High Court had observed that the exercise of these powers appeared to show “clear bias”. The court noted that a significant proportion of those sent to jail under these provisions belonged to minority communities and economically weaker sections of society.
According to the court’s observations, such individuals often struggled to arrange substantial bail amounts or sureties and were consequently forced to remain in jail for extended periods.
The High Court had also questioned the large number of people sent to jail under these provisions in Delhi within a single year.
The latest ruling in Bora’s case brings her challenge to the SEM Court notice to an end at this stage, while the directions requiring the magistrate to provide all relevant materials remain an important part of the court’s decision.
About The Author
Comment List