No Contempt: MHA Defends Police Action, Calls Home Secretary's SC Apology 'Mandatory'
The Ministry of Home Affairs clarifies that the Home Secretary's apology to the Supreme Court is a mandatory formality, not an admission of guilt.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has stepped in to clarify the circumstances surrounding an unconditional apology tendered by Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan to the Supreme Court. Addressing media reports that suggested the apology was an admission of wrongdoing, the MHA asserted that such a gesture is a standard legal requirement in response to a MHA response to contempt notice and does not imply that the government or police acted illegally.
The 'Mandatory' Nature of the Apology
Taking to the X handle of the PIB-Ministry of Home Affairs, the ministry explained that whenever the Supreme Court issues a contempt notice, it is a mandatory practice for the responding party to begin their affidavit with an unconditional apology. According to the MHA, this is a procedural formality followed in every contempt petition, after which the actual facts and legal arguments are presented.
The ministry highlighted that the affidavits filed by the Home Secretary, the Commissioner of Police, and other relevant officials all began with this required phrasing to comply with judicial protocol.
Defending Law Enforcement Actions
Beyond the procedural apology, the MHA maintained a firm stance on the legality of the government's actions. The ministry stated that the detailed particulars provided in the affidavits clearly establish that all measures taken by the government and the police were fully compliant with the law. Consequently, they argued that no actual case of contempt has been made out against the officials.
The Core of the Dispute: Internet Shutdowns and Restrictions
The legal friction began following a Supreme Court order on October 9, which directed the Centre to lift complete prohibitions on certain services and ensure that regulations did not cause undue inconvenience to the general public in Delhi.
In his response to the court, Home Secretary Govind Mohan clarified the following points:
- Public Order: The restrictions imposed on October 9 were intended to maintain peace and prevent public disturbances, especially since a proposed protest was allegedly being organized without the necessary permissions.
- Past Experience: The government cited the Delhi Police's experience during the NEET protests in July as a reason for the preemptive measures.
- Proportionate Response: Regarding the suspension of internet services, Mohan submitted that the Delhi Police requested a one-day cellular internet shutdown. This was processed legally and deemed proportionate to the situation.
Specifics of the Internet Suspension
The Home Secretary provided a detailed breakdown of the internet shutdown to demonstrate its limited scope:
- Duration: The shutdown lasted from 10 pm on October 9 to 10 pm on October 10.
- Area: It was restricted to a four-kilometre radius around Raisina Hill.
- Type of Service: Only cellular internet was affected; Wi-Fi and broadband connections remained operational.
Govind Mohan has now requested the Supreme Court to discharge the contempt notice issued against him. Furthermore, he has sought a modification of the court's October 11 order to allow for internet suspensions in necessary situations, provided they are subject to statutory safeguards.