Bora’s counsel disputed the allegations, arguing that she had called for a peaceful gathering at Mandi House and had been detained shortly after arriving there. He maintained that she was not responsible for the separate CJP call to unfurl the national flag at Central Park.
During Thursday’s hearing, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Bora, questioned whether the authorities had established any credible basis for apprehending a breach of peace. He argued that the notice had been issued mechanically, without adequate application of mind by the SEM, and that the statutory process required an inquiry into the material before a bond could be imposed.
Sankaranarayanan also argued that citizens did not need prior permission merely to hoist the national flag and that demanding a change of government was legitimate in a democracy. “There is nothing wrong in (demanding a) regime change in a democracy, I’m sorry,” he submitted.
The court had questioned the authorities on whether they had predetermined the need for a bond before completing the inquiry and whether the magistrate had independently assessed the information supplied by the police.
The Centre, represented by additional solicitor-general Chetan Sharma, opposed Bora’s challenge, arguing that the preventive proceedings were legally justified. Sharma cited what he described as repeated violations by Bora and referred to police records, general diary entries and previous cases to support the authorities’ apprehension of a breach of peace.
About the Author
