The Union Home Ministry on Thursday, 15 October 2026, clarified that media reports claiming Home Secretary Govind Mohan had tendered an unconditional apology to the Supreme Court in a contempt case linked to the October 10 protest curbs in Delhi are misleading and distort established legal procedure. The Ministry stressed that the opening apology in such affidavits is a mandatory procedural requirement — not an admission of wrongdoing.

What the Ministry Said

The Ministry stated, 'Whenever a contempt notice is issued by the Supreme Court, it is required that the party responding to the notice must begin their affidavit with an unconditional apology. Only thereafter are all other facts and arguments presented.'

It further clarified, 'This is mandatorily followed in every contempt petition. Following this practice, the first paragraph of the affidavits filed by the Home Secretary, Commissioner of Police, and other concerned officials complied with this requirement. Thereafter, detailed particulars in the affidavit have been furnished.'

Background: The October 10 Protest and Internet Curbs

The contempt proceedings stem from a Supreme Court notice issued in connection with the temporary suspension of mobile internet services in parts of central Delhi during the October 10 protest against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP). The government's counter-affidavit, filed on Wednesday, defended the suspension as a proportionate and lawful measure to prevent a disturbance of public order.

Notably, the Centre denied any wilful disobedience of court directions, asserting in its affidavit that all actions taken by the government and the police were fully compliant with the law and that no case of contempt was made out against them.

Centre's Requests Before the Supreme Court

Through its affidavit, the Centre urged the Supreme Court to discharge the contempt notice issued to Home Secretary Govind Mohan. It also sought a modification of the court's existing order to permit future suspension of internet services in situations where such a measure becomes necessary, provided decisions are taken in strict compliance with applicable law and statutory safeguards.

This comes amid heightened scrutiny of the government's powers to impose communication blackouts, an issue that has repeatedly come before the judiciary in recent years. The Supreme Court has previously set out procedural guardrails for internet shutdowns, making the Centre's request for a modification of the order particularly significant.

Why This Matters

The clarification highlights a recurring tension between the government's invocation of public order powers and judicial oversight of fundamental rights, including the right to access the internet. Critics argue that internet shutdowns disproportionately affect ordinary citizens, while the Centre maintains that narrowly targeted suspensions are a necessary and lawful tool in specific circumstances. The Supreme Court's eventual ruling on the contempt notice — and the modification request — could set a precedent for how communication curbs are handled at future public protests.

The matter is expected to come up for further hearing before the Supreme Court in the coming days, with the court's response to the Centre's modification request closely watched by civil liberties advocates and law enforcement agencies alike.