SC drops contempt proceedings after V K Singh's apology

Repentance is a tool which condones all sorts of misdemeanour, observed the Supreme Court on Wednesday while dropping contempt proceedings against former Army chief Gen V K Singh.

A bench of Justices R M Lodha and H L Gokhale accepted the “unqualified” and “unconditional” apology rendered by Singh for making remarks against the apex court for not deciding the row over his date of birth on the basis of his matriculation certificate.

Singh had made the remarks in an interview to ANI on September 21, which was later published in “The Indian Express”, prompting the court to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against the 62-year-old and the newspaper.

Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, appearing for Singh, submitted that he was willing to withdraw not only that particular statement but all earlier remarks given in other interviews.

Taking into record counsel’s submission, the bench said: “Apology tendered by contemnor without contesting the contempt notice on merit appears to be bona fide.

 Repentance is a tool which condones all sorts of misdemeanours. If apology comes from the heart and that too from a senior advocate like Jethmalani, it (contempt proceeding) should not continue even for a second.” 

At the outset, the court referred to the affidavit filed two days ago by Singh and asked him to explain how he put the blame on “erroneous reporting” for initiation of proceedings against him. “Was there any erroneous reporting? We are concerned with the institution (of court). For (upholding) the majesty of the institution, you have to assist us,” the bench told Jethmalani.

Jethmalani, who first tried to defend Singh’s affidavit by saying that erroneous reporting was possible, agreed to withdraw that part of the statement as well. Singh was present in court.

Jethmalani also tried to hand over two copies of Singh’s autobiography, “Courage and Conviction”, to the bench, which they refused, saying that they would order the library to buy them. However, appreciating the gesture, the court said, “It is always enlightening to read experiences of a general.”

The apex court on October 1 issued notice to Singh and the newspaper for publishing his statement “intended to lower or lowering the authority of the court” on September 22. The newspaper had already tendered its apology.

Singh had filed a writ petition seeking direction from the court to the Centre to treat his date of birth as May 10, 1951, instead of May 10, 1950, but decided to withdraw it after his counsel argued at length. The court had granted Singh permission for it and recorded his submission in the order on February 10, 2012.

Following the contempt notice, he filed an affidavit describing the judges as “demigods” and claimed that he never thought of making any imputation against them.