Apology In Contempt Affidavits Is Settled Practice, Not Admission: SG Tushar Mehta Tells Supreme Court; MHA Clarifies

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta raised the point at the outset before a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, which was hearing contempt proceedings over alleged non-compliance with the Court's directions on the curbs. He made clear that he was not addressing the merits.

The Solicitor General submitted that the opening paragraph of each affidavit followed the established practice in contempt proceedings and did not amount to an admission that the authorities had deliberately violated the Court's directions. Explaining the practice, he said, "I want to say something at the outset. Not on merits. Your Lordships have issued notice in contempt. We have filed responses in contempt. Your Lordships' law is well-settled that whenever we file a response to contempt notices, the first sentence we write is that we hereby tender an unconditional apology. Thereafter, we explain how the contempt is not made out. It is with reference to compliance with that law that in every affidavit this is the first paragraph."

CJI Kant observed that the Court had not examined the media reports to which the Solicitor General referred, and clarified that the Court was not taking cognisance of those reports.

Justice Bagchi observed that the Court was not taking cognisance either of the reports or of the unconditional apologies in isolation. He added that the Solicitor General's subsequent submissions had qualified the context in which the apology was offered.

MHA: Apology reflects established practice; Affidavits show no contempt is made out

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has separately, through a press release clarified that the unconditional apology in the affidavits follows established practice in contempt proceedings and is not an admission of contempt. The Ministry has further stated that the affidavits establish that the Government and the police acted in compliance with the law and that no contempt is made out.

Background

The controversy arose from the affidavits filed by the Home Secretary and the Police Commissioner in response to contempt notices issued over restrictions imposed ahead of the October 10 protest called by the Cockroach Janta Party against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The directions said to have been breached were first issued on October 9 and reiterated on October 11, when a Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana sat on a Sunday. As reproduced in the Delhi Police affidavit, paragraph 16 of the October 11 order directed: "(a) Metro trains and railway facilities shall function normally until and unless they need to be regulated keeping in mind reasonable restrictions envisaged under Article 19(2). (b) Similarly, free movement of people in the city shall be ensured subject to law-and-order situation and/or traffic regulations. Imposition of barricades on roads shall be reviewed forthwith to ensure free movement subject to law and order and traffic requirements. (c) Internet facilities should function unhindered. (d) There shall be no illegal detention, particularly in cases of peaceful unarmed assemblage of people beyond the area where Section 163 BNSS is in operation. (e) … We direct the authorities concerned to forthwith take down the said board, if not already done, so that there is no apprehension with regard to ingress and egress to the Supreme Court or any other court of law. (f) Lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be hindered in discharge of their professional duties in any manner whatsoever."

Home Secretary's Affidavit

In his affidavit, the Home Secretary tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology while maintaining that the temporary suspension of cellular internet services was necessary to maintain public order. He stated that the suspension operated from 10 PM on October 9 to 10 PM on October 10 within a four-kilometre radius of Raisina Hill, and did not extend to Wi-Fi, broadband or other telecommunication services.

The Home Secretary stated that the measure was proportionate to the circumstances. He also sought modification of the October 11 order so as to permit suspension of internet services in situations of necessity, subject to the applicable legal safeguards.

The Police Commissioner, too, tendered an unconditional apology while denying wilful or deliberate non-compliance with the Court's directions, and defended the preventive measures taken during the protests as necessary to maintain public order.

In the Compliance Affidavit filed on behalf of the Delhi Police in Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Govind Mohan & Ors., he stated, "That the answering respondent submits that there is already complete compliance to all the above directions issued by this Hon'ble court and the same shall be reviewed only in accordance with law keeping in mind the dynamic changing circumstances which are prevailing in the State of NCT DELHI."

Responding to the direction on the Section 163 BNSS notice board, the affidavit stated that Delhi, as the capital, "holds a sensitive position" with regular VVIP movements, including visiting heads of State. It added, "There are approximately 195 vital institutions in New Delhi alone and therefore the complexion of precautions that are required to be taken are peculiarly different from other parts of the country."

The affidavit stated that between August and October 2026 there were "several High profile diplomatic visits, international summits judicial conferences and global trade exhibitions held including the 18th BRICS summit", and that, with a large number of embassies and High Commissions located in New Delhi, "any public order situation immediately attracts global attention harming the reputation of a fast developing nation as ours globally."

It explained that orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which corresponds to Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are issued "from time to time for maintaining peace, preventing danger to human life or safety and prevent disturbance of public tranquillity", and prohibit, among other things, public meetings, assembly of five or more persons, slogan-shouting, speeches, processions, demonstrations, and picketing or dharnas in the scheduled area without written permission.

The affidavit stated that "no action has been taken against any person under Section 65 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 … and/or Section 172 of the BNSS beyond the area of operation of notification(s) issued under Section 163 of the BNSS." It added that "several police stations have issued orders under Section 163 BNSS and such orders are not confined only to the Police Station under the area of Jantar Mantar."

On the notice board, it stated that directions had been issued to comply with paragraph 16(e), and that "to the best of knowledge of the Answering Deponents no notice was affixed inside the precincts of the Hon'ble Supreme Court."

According to the affidavit, restrictions regulating metro services were imposed with effect from 9 PM on October 9, 2026 "keeping in mind the movement of unruly mob towards sensitive location", continued until 10 PM on October 10 under Letter No. 1534 dated October 9, and were withdrawn by Letter No. 3144 dated October 10. It noted that the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation had filed a separate detailed affidavit, and submitted that the direction in paragraph 16(a) "stood already complied with even at the time of passing of the said Order."

On barricades, the affidavit stated that steps had already been taken to ensure free movement of people, that their imposition was being reviewed in accordance with the law-and-order situation, and that the Delhi Traffic Police had issued traffic advisories on October 9 and 10 through its official platforms and in newspapers.

On the internet direction, the affidavit stated, "It is respectfully submitted that internet facilities were working unhindered and only cellular internet services were suspended owing to the law and order situation in complete compliance of the stipulated rules and regulations which are also being constantly reviewed in accordance with law and subject to this Hon'ble Court modifying/ clarifying its order dated 11.10.2026, Appropriate action will be taken in proportion to the need."

On the directions against illegal detention and against hindering professionals, the affidavit stated that "there has been no illegal detention nor any hindrance to any professionals in discharge of their professional duties in any manner whatsoever."

Responding to what it called "the insinuation made at Paragraph 9 of the Order dated 11.10.2026", the affidavit stated that "only person who were violating orders under Section 163 BNSS were removed."