Why Union home secretary’s apology in Delhi Protest contempt case is not an admission of guilt

The Union home secretary’s apology to the Supreme Court over the restrictions imposed during the October 10 Delhi protests has triggered a legal debate over the difference between expressing regret before a court and admitting that its orders were wilfully disobeyed.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, on Thursday, clarified before the top court that the government had not conceded contempt, objecting to media reports and social media posts suggesting that the Centre had apologised to the court and had little further to say in its defence.

The clarification came during the hearing of contempt petitions arising from restrictions imposed ahead of a protest called by the Cockroach Janata Party against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan had filed an affidavit tendering an unconditional and unqualified apology. However, the affidavit also defended the authorities’ actions, including the suspension of mobile internet services, on grounds of maintaining public order. The Delhi Police Commissioner similarly apologised while explaining why preventive measures had been taken.

Mehta told a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that the opening paragraph of the affidavits should not be read in isolation. He argued that an apology is ordinarily tendered at the beginning of a response to a contempt notice, after which the alleged contemnor explains why the conduct in question does not amount to contempt.

In other words, the government’s position is that it can express an unconditional apology to the court while maintaining that its actions were justified and did not constitute wilful disobedience of judicial directions.

The distinction is important because contempt proceedings are not simply about whether an authority regrets an incident. The court must examine whether its order was violated and, where relevant, whether the violation was wilful. An apology may be considered while deciding how to deal with contempt, but its mere submission does not automatically establish guilt or bring the proceedings to an end.

The controversy arose after the Supreme Court, on October 9, directed that Metro and train services in Delhi should not be completely prohibited ahead of the October 10 protest and should instead operate in a regulated manner. Petitioners subsequently alleged that restrictions on transport, detentions and the suspension of mobile internet services violated the court’s directions.

On October 11, the Supreme Court found a prima facie case for issuing contempt notices and passed interim directions concerning transport services, movement of people, internet connectivity and alleged illegal detentions. A prima facie finding, however, is not a final determination that contempt has been committed.

During Thursday’s hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant said the court was not taking cognisance of the media reports cited by the Solicitor General. Justice Bagchi went further, observing that the apology appeared qualified in light of Mehta’s submissions defending the authorities’ conduct.

Mehta maintained that the apology remained unconditional and that the affidavit subsequently supplied facts and reasons for the government’s actions.