In his reply to the Supreme Court’s contempt notice over the October 10 Delhi protest curbs, Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan has apologised unconditionally, but argued that the cellular internet suspension was proportionate and asked for leave to impose such suspensions in future.
New Delhi: There was no wilful or deliberate non-compliance with its orders, the Union Home Secretary has told the Supreme Court, which he asked to discharge the contempt notice issued to him after tendering an unconditional apology. His affidavit defends the one-day suspension of mobile internet around Raisina Hill on the day of the October 10 protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and seeks a modification of the Court’s October 11 order so that internet suspensions stay possible in situations of necessity [Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Govind Mohan].
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant had the contempt petitions listed on October 15. Notices were issued on October 11 to Home Secretary Govind Mohan, the Delhi Police Commissioner and the Chairperson of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. As of writing, the Court has recorded no finding on the affidavits, and what follows is the respondents’ account.
Inside the Home Secretary’s affidavit
The four-page affidavit, filed on the night of October 14, offers what the Home Secretary calls an unconditional and unqualified apology. He says the Centre’s October 9 communication imposing restrictions was meant to maintain peace and prevent disruption of public order. In support, it cites a proposed protest that allegedly lacked the required permission and Delhi Police’s experience during the July 20 protest over the NEET paper leak.
On the internet, the affidavit says Delhi Police asked for a one-day suspension of cellular internet, the request was processed in accordance with law, and the measure was found proportionate. It ran from 10 pm on October 9 to 10 pm on October 10 within a four-kilometre radius of Raisina Hill, and covered cellular internet only, not Wi-Fi or broadband. The Home Secretary describes this as a limited, area-specific suspension with statutory safeguards, of a kind recognised as a public-order measure.
He also asks the Court to modify its October 11 direction that internet facilities should function unhindered, so that suspensions remain permissible in situations of necessity and subject to the requirements of law.
How the contempt case began
The trail leads back to the October 9 hearing, where the Supreme Court was told of curbs on Delhi’s trains, Metro and mobile internet ahead of a protest called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) against the Chief Election Commissioner. The Court then directed that there should be no complete prohibition on such services and that regulation should not inconvenience common citizens. The petitioners say the restrictions of October 10 breached that order. At a special Sunday sitting on October 11, the Court found a prima facie case, issued notice, and directed that Metro and rail services run normally and internet facilities function unhindered.
The other two respondents
The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation has filed its own affidavit denying any violation of the October 9 order. It says all 271 trains completed their 157 scheduled trips on October 10 and that entry and exit were restricted at 45 of 303 stations. About 32 lakh passengers travelled that day, against nearly 58 lakh on a normal second Saturday, a drop it attributes to commuters staying home because of the protest. It has also apologised unconditionally, adding that the October 9 order was passed ex parte and was not served on it.
The Delhi Police Commissioner, too, has apologised without condition and denied wilful non-compliance. He points to earlier protests involving damaged buses and to incidents on October 6, 7 and 8 as the reason for the preventive steps. The Court is yet to record the petitioners’ contentions on these affidavits.
What the Court has to decide
This is the first answer to the contempt notice from the Union government’s senior-most home official, and it casts the dispute as one about how far the executive may suspend internet services for public order. The Court will have to say whether the apology is accepted and the notice discharged, and whether its October 11 direction on internet access should be diluted. Until then these remain the respondents’ accounts, and the Court’s own findings are yet to come.
Case Title: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Govind Mohan, contempt petition arising from the Supreme Court’s October 9 and October 11, 2026 orders
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant (listed October 15, 2026)
Date of Hearing: October 15, 2026
Appearances: Not available at the time of writing