New Delhi: The Union ministry of home affairs opened its response to the contempt petition against it heard by the Supreme Court of India on Thursday (October 15), with an apology. But hours later, the ministry wrote on X that the apology was something it was legally “required” to do, suggesting that it did apologise in court, but did not mean it.“Some media organisations report that the Union Home Secretary has tendered an unconditional apology to the Honourable Supreme Court in response to a contempt notice. In this regard, this is to state:Whenever a contempt notice is issued by the Honourable Supreme Court, it is required that the party responding to the notice must begin their affidavit with an unconditional apology. Only thereafter all other facts and arguments are presented. This is mandatorily followed in every contempt petition.”The above clarification was tendered on behalf of the ministry by the Press Information Bureau (PIB).To be sure, pro forma apologies are not really the practice in Indian courts, or courts anywhere, as apologies tendered before courts – especially in contempt pleas – have serious legal implications. For example, Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, provides that a court may discharge the accused or remit punishment on an apology being made to its satisfaction.Not apologising could have the opposite effect. It is the contemnor’s choice whether to face proceedings or apology. If they decide the latter, it is up to the court to determine the penalty or discharge the matter. Famously, comedian Kunal Kamra had refused to apologise in a contempt proceeding brought by the Supreme Court. He also refused to apologise in a proceeding related to his allegedly lampooning Maharashtra’s deputy chief minister.As per reports on Thursday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta made the same argument in court: that the apology followed the court’s established law on responses to contempt notices, while there had been no contempt in reality.Supreme Court Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who was hearing the case, said this amounted to a conditional apology rather than an unconditional one.But Mehta also said media and social media reports had wrongly suggested that the government had apologised and had nothing to say in its defence.However, the law on contempt of court also says that a bona fide apology cannot be rejected merely because it is qualified or conditional. That is, the respondent in a contempt plea has the right to explain themselves and put forward arguments in their defence. It does not take away from the apology.Accordingly, the government said in court that its measures on October 10 (a day after the Supreme Court said it cannot impose blanket travel and internet restrictions) were based on a request from Delhi Police and that they were “found proportionate”.However, the law does not require the reply to begin with an apology. Yet the ministry said in a response routed via the PIB that:Some media organisations report that the Union Home Secretary has tendered an unconditional apology to the Honourable Supreme Court in response to a contempt notice. In this regard, this is to state:Whenever a contempt notice is issued by the Honourable Supreme Court, it is required that the party responding to the notice must begin their affidavit with an unconditional apology. Only thereafter all other facts and arguments are presented. 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, by which it has been clearly established that all actions taken by the Government and the Police are fully compliant with the law, and no case of contempt is made out against them.— PIB – Ministry of Home Affairs (@PIBHomeAffairs) October 15, 2026The Union government may have been “following this practice”, of apologising without meaning to, believing it to be a legal obligation. However, this could not be independently verified by The Wire.That said, the Union home ministry’s post on X (via PIB) does accept that the first paragraph of the affidavits filed by Union home secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police commissioner Anurag Kumar and other concerned officials began with an apology to the court.“Thereafter, detailed particulars in the affidavit have been furnished, by which it has been clearly established that all actions taken by the government and the police are fully compliant with the law, and no case of contempt is made out against them,” the ministry, which oversees the functioning of Delhi Police, said.The background to Thursday’s hearing is that the Supreme Court on October 11 issued notices against the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) (via its chairperson D. Thara), railway authorities and the Delhi Traffic Police, based on a plea alleging violations of its October 9 order lifting restrictions on transport and internet services in the capital.