Home Ministry on internet shutdowns: ‘Unconditional apology’ was a formality; no contempt of court

After media reports highlighted the Union Home Ministry’s “unconditional apology” before the Supreme Court over recent internet shutdowns, the Press Information Bureau’s Home Affairs account issued a clarification. It said the apology was part of procedural formalities and maintained 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.”

Here is the full notice:

“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.” – Union Home Ministry

MediaNama documented the continuation of internet restrictions despite the Supreme Court’s October 11 direction that “Internet facilities should function unhindered“.

 “There is no mobile Internet connectivity at ITO, around 5 km away from Jantar Mantar. Most newspaper offices are located here, including The Hindu and TOI,”  wrote The Hindu’s reporter Vaijaita Singh on X. She posted this on October 10 around 1 pm, when the internet shutdown was active. As the order noted, the non-cellular internet activity, like Wi-Fi, was not shut down. 

There is no mobile Internet connectivity at ITO, around 5 kms away from Jantar Mantar. Most newspaper offices are located here including The Hindu and TOI. #CJP

— Vijaita Singh (@vijaita) October 10, 2026

The affidavit filed by the Home Secretary also revealed that Delhi Police had requested the internet shutdowns. These are the following arguments made by the Home Secretary:

1. To ‘maintain peace and tranquility’: “The measures were necessitated by the call given by an organisation to hold a protest without obtaining the requisite permission and in defiance of the refusal of permission, contrary to law declared by this Hon’ble Court in the judgment of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India and Ors. (2018) 17 SCC 324 and in light of the recent experience of the Delhi Police on 20.07.2026,” the Home Secretary’s affidavit stated according to a LiveLaw report.

He was referring to the July protests at Jantar Mantar, which were also marked by internet shutdowns, censorship, surveillance and reported police violence. Read MediaNama’s coverage of the second day of the July protests here.

1. ‘Top secret’ internet shutdown order was found ‘proportionate’: “The said request was duly processed and considered in accordance with law and was found to be a proportionate measure, having regard to the magnitude of the situation and the need to prevent any disturbance of public order in the national capital.”

The October 9 shutdown order, marked “Top Secret”, was not initially made public and became available after ANI published it.

In its 2020 Anuradha Bhasin judgment, the Supreme Court held that internet shutdown orders must be made public and be open to judicial review. But the internet shutdown order of October 9 was marked as “top secret”:

“It must be noted that although the Suspension Rules does not provide for publication or notification of the orders, a settled principle of law, and of natural justice, is that an order, particularly one that affects lives, liberty and property of people, must be made available …. We are therefore required to read in the requirement of ensuring that all the orders passed under the Suspension Rules are made freely available, through some suitable mechanism.

The above requirement would further the rights of an affected party to challenge the orders, if aggrieved. Judicial review of the orders issued under the Suspension Rules is always available, although no appellate mechanism has been provided, and the same cannot be taken away or made ineffective. An aggrieved person has the constitutional right to challenge the orders made under the Suspension Rules, before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or other appropriate forum.” – Supreme Court (2020)

1. Defined geographical area and limited time period: “The suspension of internet services for a limited period and within a defined geographical area, subject to the applicable statutory safeguards, is a recognised measure that may be considered for maintaining public order in appropriate circumstances.”

At least two separate Home Ministry orders imposed internet restrictions during the October protests.

The first order suspended internet services within a 4-km radius of the Janpath–Kartavya Path area from 10 pm on October 9 to 10 pm on October 10. The second imposed restrictions within a 500-metre radius of eight specified locations from noon to 10 pm on October 10.

Also Read: 

• Trying to change opinions on internet shutdowns
• The impact of Internet shutdowns