Supreme Court says media reports on Centre's protest apology are irrelevant

The Supreme Court on Thursday told the Centre that it was not taking cognisance of media reports suggesting that government authorities had tendered unconditional apologies in contempt proceedings over alleged violations of its directions on Metro and train services in Delhi during an October 10 protest against SIR, the Press Trust of India reported.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observation after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified that the Centre and its agencies, including Delhi Police and the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, had defended their actions in affidavits filed in response to contempt notices.

Mehta said that, as part of standard drafting practice, the affidavits filed by the Union home secretary, the DMRC and Delhi Police began by tendering unconditional apologies. He said media headlines and social media posts were portraying these statements as admissions of wrongdoing without considering the explanations and justifications given by the authorities.

"I am not on the merits of the matter. I want to say something other than that, if the other side permits. The court has issued notice in contempt. We have filed responses in the contempt matters. The law is well settled that whenever we file a response to a contempt notice, the first sentence we write is that we hereby tender an unconditional apology, and thereafter we explain how contempt has not been committed," Mehta said.

"It is in compliance with that law that this is the first paragraph in every affidavit. 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, and the first paragraph is in compliance with the law laid down by this court," he added.

The Chief Justice said media coverage was not relevant to the proceedings. "What the media does is not relevant. We are not holding proceedings for the media," he said.

Justice Bagchi said the court was not taking cognisance of the unqualified apology referred to by the solicitor general. He added that, in view of Mehta's submissions, the apology appeared to be qualified. Mehta maintained that the apology was unconditional and that the affidavits then set out the relevant facts and reasons for the authorities' actions. "It is an unconditional apology. Thereafter, I have given the reasons. Thereafter, I have given the facts. That's all," he said.

The contempt proceedings concern allegations that the authorities violated the Supreme Court's October 9 directions to ensure there was no "complete prohibition" on Metro and train services in Delhi during the October 10 protest called by the Cockroach Janta Party.

Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan and Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar filed affidavits tendering unconditional and unqualified apologies while explaining and defending the measures taken by the administration, PTI reported.

Mohan said in his affidavit that Delhi Police had requested the suspension of cellular internet services for a day, until 10 pm on October 10. He said the request was processed and considered in accordance with the law and found to be proportionate, given the circumstances and the need to maintain public order.

According to the home secretary, cellular internet services were suspended from 10 pm on October 9 to 10 pm on October 10 within a four-kilometre radius of Raisina Hill. He clarified that the suspension was limited to cellular internet and did not cover Wi-Fi, broadband or other non-cellular internet services.

Kumar said in his affidavit that the preventive measures taken on October 10 were based on intelligence inputs and assessments of the changing situation on the ground. He said the measures, including the regulation of Metro services, were intended to maintain peace and prevent a disturbance of public order.

The police commissioner defended the response by citing Delhi's sensitivities as the national capital. He also referred to the alleged history of mob violence, damage to public and private property, and injuries linked to the organisation and subsequent events on October 6, 7 and 8. He said an incorrect narrative was being spread about the police action.

The DMRC maintained that Metro services were neither curtailed nor cancelled because of the protest, although entry and exit were restricted at selected stations. In its affidavit, the corporation said restrictions were imposed at 45 of its 303 stations, or about 15 per cent of the network, from 9 pm on October 9 until October 10. The remaining 258 stations continued to provide full access to commuters.

The DMRC said about 32 lakh passengers travelled on October 10, compared with around 58 lakh on a normal second Saturday. It argued that the lower ridership showed the adverse impact of the protest on ordinary commuters.

The court, therefore, made it clear that media reports about the apologies would not influence the proceedings, while the Centre, Delhi Police and the DMRC maintained that their affidavits defended the measures taken during the October 10 protest.

- Ends