Is an apology that comes with reasons still an unconditional one? The Solicitor General says yes; Justice Bagchi called it qualified, while the Chief Justice told the Solicitor General that what the media does “is not relevant”.
New Delhi: Worried by media reports on the authorities’ apology in the contempt pleas that arise from the October 10 Delhi protests, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta raised the point in the Supreme Court on Thursday, only to be told by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant that the Court was “not holding proceedings for the media” [Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Govind Mohan and connected matters].
Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi were on the Bench. The exchange came at the very start of the hearing, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the authorities.
The Solicitor General’s clarification
In his reply to the contempt notice, Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan tendered an unconditional apology and, in the same filing, defended the October 10 mobile internet shutdown as proportionate. Mehta began by saying he was not addressing the merits. His point was that the affidavits open with an unconditional apology, in keeping with the Court’s rulings, and then explain why, in the authorities’ view, no contempt was committed:
“But now, in the media and on social media, it is being said that the government has apologised, that they have nothing to say. I want to clarify that the government has defended its actions.”
The Chief Justice interjected:
“What the media does is not relevant. We are not holding proceedings for the media.”
Justice Bagchi on the word “unconditional”
Justice Bagchi went on to the character of the apology itself:
“Yes, yes. Neither are we taking cognisance of the unqualified apology. By your submission, it is a qualified apology.”
Mehta held his ground: “It is an unconditional apology. Thereafter, I have given the reasons. Thereafter, I have given the facts. That’s all.” He added: “The first sentence is picked up, and that becomes the headline.”
Why the label matters
An apology in contempt proceedings is ordinarily expected to be unconditional and sincere before it can be accepted, and one that comes together with a justification of the conduct complained of may be treated as qualified. Justice Bagchi’s remark suggests the Bench will read the affidavits as a whole instead of stopping at their opening lines. The contempt petitions allege breach of the Court’s October 9 order on Metro and rail services and of its October 11 directions. On October 11 the Court recorded a prima facie case, which is not a finding of contempt.
How the contempt case came about
It all traces back to October 9. A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana held that Metro and train services in Delhi could not be completely prohibited ahead of the October 10 protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, and directed that services run in a regulated manner. On October 10, Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi filed a contempt petition alleging Metro station closures and train cancellations in breach of that order, alongside complaints of mass detentions and a mobile internet shutdown.
Justices Bagchi and Mohana sat specially on Sunday, October 11. They recorded a prima facie case, issued notice to the alleged contemnors, and passed ad-interim directions that Metro and rail services function normally, that people move freely, that internet services remain undisturbed and that no one be illegally detained. A Section 163 notice board near the Court was ordered removed. Habeas petitions, including one by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, were heard with it.
The authorities have since filed their replies. The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation said all 4,157 scheduled trips ran on October 10, with entry and exit restricted at 45 of its 303 stations on Delhi Police directions. Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan tendered an unconditional apology while defending the internet shutdown as proportionate, and the Delhi Police Commissioner’s affidavit alleged that the organisers had disregarded the requirement of prior permission.
The contempt allegations are untested, and the Court has expressed no view on the merits.
Case: Batch of petitions on the October 10 Delhi protests, including Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Govind Mohan [Contempt Petition (C) Diary No. 63801/2026] and connected matters
Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Date of Hearing: October 15, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocates Dr A.M. Singhvi, Kapil Sibal, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, N. Hariharan, C.U. Singh, Dr Menaka Guruswamy, Arundhati Katju, Nitya Ramakrishnan, Shoeb Alam, Sanjay Hegde, Indira Jaising, Mukta Gupta and Gaurav Bhatia, with Advocates Vrinda Grover and Nizam Pasha, for various petitioners; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the authorities