Now Reading: SG clarifies to SC govt apology was procedural, not admission of wrongdoing
-
01
SG clarifies to SC govt apology was procedural, not admission of wrongdoing
SG clarifies to SC govt apology was procedural, not admission of wrongdoing
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Friday, 16 October, told the Supreme Court that media reports and social media posts claiming the government had apologized for its conduct in the Delhi Metro protests were misleading. Before a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Mehta explained that tendering an unqualified apology is a standard first paragraph in any affidavit responding to a contempt notice, required by Supreme Court law. The government had defended its actions in those affidavits, he said.
The CJI responded that the court was not taking cognisance of the reports and was not holding proceedings for the media. Justice Bagchi remarked that because Mehta had given reasons, the apology appeared qualified, though Mehta insisted it was unconditional. The contempt proceedings arose from allegations that authorities violated Supreme Court directions on October 9 to avoid a complete prohibition of Metro and train services on 10 October during a protest by the Cockroach Janta Party.
Indian Opinion Analysis
Both livelaw.in and timesnownews.com report the same Supreme Court hearing, but livelaw.in leads with SG Tushar Mehta's objection to 'misleading' reports, framing the government as aggrieved by media misrepresentation. Timesnownews.com, while also reporting the clarification, places it after a broader account that includes the CJI's remark that media coverage is not relevant to the court and Justice Bagchi's comment that the apology appeared qualified given Mehta's submissions. Timesnownews.com then provides the context of the contempt case and the authorities' justifications, giving equal weight to the court's disinterest and the government's defence. The common ground is the uniform reporting of the procedure. The divergence lies in livelaw.in positioning the government's clarification as the central event, while timesnownews.com centers the court's treatment of the media and the apology. The balanced reading confirms the court took no cognisance of the reports and moved to the case's merits.
Coverage: 2 sources, 2 neutral
Sources (2): livelaw.in (neutral report), timesnownews.com (neutral report)
This brief was synthesised by AI from the 2 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry. Methodology and corrections.
