By Arun Srivastava
Student leaders being forced to sign peace-bond, in the wake of their protest at Jantar Mantar has raised a very beguiling issue in public domain whether Narendra Modi government instead of genuinely decolonising the Indian Jurisprudence has restructured and brutalised it for suppressing the democratic protest and dissent against their political authority. Delhi police’s insistence at the direction of Amit Shah to obtain peace-bond certainly has not come as surprise as the authoritarian or right-wing forces resort to this tactic to suppress popular peoples’ protest.
Right-wing forces or regimes resort to repressive tactics to suppress popular dissent for several key reasons: protection of existing power structures, preserve status quo, alliance with the capitalist elites. Rightist ideologies often emphasize the preservation of traditional hierarchies, social orders, and established economic structures. When popular dissent threatens these systems they resort to brutal use of repressive measures. Historically right-wing authoritarian forces often form alliances with elites who feared socialist or populist movements.
By framing popular dissent, minority rights movements, or leftist opposition not merely as political disagreement but as an existential threat to the nation’s survival, regimes justify the use of extraordinary, extra-legal, or violent measures to “protect” society. Shockingly Amit Shah perceives the students’ movement as threat to the nation and nationalism. Though the students throughout their four month movement at no stage resorted to violent means, Shah’s police on the contrary has resorted to brutal repressive measures. Fascism inherently rejects democratic pluralism, viewing political opposition as a sign of weakness, division, and national decay.
The move to get peace-bond from agitating leaders is a design to systematically dismantle democratic checks and balances, placing the judiciary, military, and police under direct ideological control, weaponize and criminalise political opposition. This is the most effective and direct mechanism for the regime to maintain its grip on power without needing to negotiate or compromise. It is worth recalling that while hearing Neha Bora petition the Delhi High Court explicitly flagged concerns over the social stigma of such procedures. The court noted that forcing a citizen to sign a bond for “good behaviour” inherently carries a negative implication.
The court had observed that the core grievance was essentially: “I am already branded as a bad boy and I have been asked to say that I shall be a good boy.” Though Modi government claims that a peace bond is legally a preventive measure, the reality in fact is it is a punitive and coercive instrument. The bond is claimed as “preventive” on paper, their execution in practice often functions as a coercive tool to suppress dissent and limit civil liberties. This is an instrument to deter political activists, student leaders, and protestors by tying them up in legal bureaucracy. Ironically even without being pronounced as a criminal by the law, the peace-bond attaches this stigma to a student leader. This unravels the criminal intent of Amit Shah to ruin the future career of a student. Neha is doing her PhD and she would certainly aspire for a nice academic future. Undeniably at that stage this bond will be used to ruin his future prospect.
The British Empire weaponized “peace bonds” and financial securities as highly effective instruments of state control to suppress public dissent, muzzle the press, and legally coerce populations into submission. Colonial administrations used these instruments in two major ways: crushing public dissent and muzzling the press. With a subservient mainstream media, which is known as Godi media, the Modi government has only one task at its hand; suppress the peoples’ dissent, which is certainly to escalate with the rightist Modi government in the planned manner was out to intensify political and social hatred and criminalisation of religion.
In colonial India, the British codified preventive policing into the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Under provisions like Section 107 and 108, executive magistrates were given broad powers to detain anyone of being “likely to commit a breach of the peace” or distributing seditious material. To avoid imprisonment or secure release, dissidents, activists, and freedom fighters were forced to sign “peace bonds” or “instruments of surrender”. These bonds legally bound the individual to “good behaviour” and prohibited them from participating in protests or political organizing for a specified period. If the signee violated the bond by dissenting, the government would forfeit a massive financial security or demand immediate imprisonment, effectively intimidating the public into quiet compliance.
Nevertheless justifying introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA),Narendra Modi had promised that these three would be platform of “decolonization, citizen-first justice, and ending systemic delays”. Using the RSS phrase, he said these are Swadeshi in nature and text. Modi and Shah tied the introduction of these laws to the concept of Panch Pran (five pledges of RSS for a developed India). Using these provisions, which are modernized iterations of colonial-era laws, effectively frames peaceful democratic protests as criminal threats to public order.
It is not that the signing of peace-bond is only applicable in Delhi. Only a day back RJD Lok Sabha MP Sudhakar Singh was detained by the Bihar Police in Nawada district while participating in a farmers’ protest, organized by local farmers from the Madhuban-Motnaje villages in the Nardiganj block to demand fair compensation for land acquired for a local dam construction project and was asked to sign bond at the directive from “top”. During the demonstration, the police took the MP along with former MLA Mohammad Kamran and several protesting farmers into custody. They were brought to the Akbarpur police station where the administration asked him to furnish legal bonds from the detained individuals to ensure “peace and good behaviour” prior to processing their release.
Police through the Special Executive Magistrate, a senior police official, insisting the protesters to sign peace-bond has raised the concerns regarding India turning into “Police Raj” before the assembly elections to five states in 2027 and Lok Sabha election of 2029. Utilizing these mandatory “peace bonds” to curtail public demonstrations resembles the heavy-handed tactics of the British Raj, warning that expanding executive and police powers risks turning democratic spaces into a police-monitored state. The fact cannot be ignored that rightist policies, particularly nationalist or socially conservative ones, will lead to the marginalization of minority groups and the restriction of political and social freedoms. Rightist forces espouse that a strong, predictable legal framework is essential for economic freedom, property rights, and personal security, which they view as essential components of a stable society.
The recent nationwide protests and the police response to them put these laws an d legal provisions under the spotlight, especially those that deal with preventive policing. Detained protestors were forced to sign bonds promising not to cause “breach of peace” for varying amounts of time. On October 10, Dipke, Das and Ranka were detained immediately upon landing in Delhi. They were released after they furnished sureties of ₹50,000 each and signed bonds to maintain peace and good behaviour for one year. On October 14, Das and Ranka were arrested again and remanded to judicial custody for 5 days for trespassing into Jantar Mantar. The police also accused them of breaching their earlier peace bonds. On October 16, en route to the “Lehra Do Tiranga” march at Delhi’s Connaught Place, Dipke and Bora were detained by the Police. Bora was released after a day and Dipke was released after he executed another peace bond.
Whether a peace bond is viewed as a neo-colonial instrument depends entirely on which type of “peace bond” it is. Significantly in Commonwealth legal systems (such as Canada or India), a peace bond is a criminal or quasi-criminal court order. It requires an individual to sign an agreement promising to keep the peace and obey specific conditions—often requiring a monetary guarantee—to prevent them from causing future harm or public disturbance.
The characterization of a peace bond as a colonial or neo-colonial instrument is a core argument raised by legal experts, activists, and civil society groups. The debate surrounding these preventative bonds—specifically regarding Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) leaders like Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das, and Ashutosh Ranka, as well as All India Students’ Association (AISA) President Neha Bora—stems from a fundamental clash between two major viewpoints: Infringement on Dissent and executive overreach. Forcing peaceful demonstrators to sign a personal bond under threat of detention is an attempt to suppress legitimate dissent.
How could a police officer pronounce which would ironically be held valid by a judicial court? By virtue of being SEM has the police officer acquired the right to pronounce judicial verdict? The use of “peace bonds” by the Delhi Police against student leaders has become a central point of contention between opposition groups and the Central government. Little doubt the implementation of so called preventive “peace bonds” has turned out to be a deeply divisive legal mechanism. (IPA Service)
