The two senior officials tender unconditional apologies to the Supreme Court in a case linked to restrictions during Delhi protests
NEW DELHI — Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan and Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar on Thursday filed affidavits before the Supreme Court tendering unconditional and unqualified apologies in the contempt case linked to restrictions during the October 10 protests called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP).
The contempt proceedings stem from alleged violation of the court’s October 9 order, and its reiteration on October 11, directing authorities to guarantee there was not a “complete prohibition” on Metro and train services ahead of the CJP protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The plea was taken up by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
‘Established Practice, Not Admission’
In separate affidavits submitted on October 15, both officers defended the measures while tendering the apology.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court at the outset that the apology was a matter of established practice in contempt replies and should not be read as an admission of wilful disobedience.
“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,” Mehta said.
Mehta added, “But now, in the media and on social media, it is being said that the government has apologised, that they have nothing to say.”
CJI Surya Kant responded: “What the media does is not relevant. We are not holding proceedings for the media.” Justice Bagchi observed that the court was not taking cognisance of either the reports or the apologies in isolation.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) later issued a press release clarifying that the unconditional apology follows established practice and is not an admission of contempt, and that the affidavits establish compliance with law.
What the Affidavits Say
Home Secretary Mohan said the Centre processed a request from Delhi Police to suspend cellular internet services for 24 hours, from 10 pm on October 9 to 10 pm on October 10, within a 4-km radius of Raisina Hill. He said it applied only to cellular data, not Wi-Fi, broadband or voice calls, and was found to be a “proportionate measure, having regard to the magnitude of the situation and the need to prevent any disturbance of public order”.
He also prayed for modification of the October 11 order to permit suspension of internet “in situations of necessity, strictly in accordance with law”.
On Metro and train services, Delhi Police said restrictions regulating metro services were imposed from 9 pm on October 9 “keeping in mind the movement of unruly mob towards sensitive location” and withdrawn by 10 pm on October 10, and that direction 16(a) for normal functioning of metro and railways “stood already complied with”. The police also said curbs on metro stations were scaled back after the court’s directions and normal services resumed by 10 pm on October 10.
In its October 11 order, the court had directed: “(a) Metro trains and railway facilities shall function normally… (c) Internet facilities should function unhindered. (d) There shall be no illegal detention…”
Defending the detentions, Police Commissioner Kumar said those taken into custody for violating orders under Section 163 BNSS were kept at makeshift centres, not lock-ups, and released within two to six hours. “Police provided them with hot, fresh and good meals…” while political leaders were accommodated in SHO chambers and offered tea, coffee and meals.
He described the CJP as an organisation with a “recent history of mob violence” and claimed gatherings were “very aggressive”. On barricades and Section 163 notices, the affidavit said Delhi holds a sensitive position with 195 vital institutions in New Delhi alone and regular VVIP movements.
The contempt notices were issued on October 11 by a Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana on a petition by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, who alleged complete shutdown of Metro and rail services during the protest. The Bench had directed contemnors to file counter-affidavits and a compliance report.
The matter was tagged with other petitions arising from the recent Delhi protests, including pleas on preservation of CCTV footage and other digital evidence, alleged voter deletions in the SIR exercise, and alleged assault on women journalists.
Regarding the alleged sexual harassment and assault of women journalists covering the demonstrations, the court indicated that an inquiry committee could be composed predominantly or exclusively of women, potentially including a former woman judge, an IPS officer and a social worker.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising sought permission to submit details of the allegations in a sealed cover to protect the identities of women willing to come forward. The CJI agreed to the request.
