2013 INSC 1058
In Re News Item Published In Indian Express (The Sunday Express), Titled "V.K. Singh
v.
ABC
(Supreme Court Of India)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE
Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 9 Of 2013 In W.P.(C) No. 26 Of 2012 | 20-11-2013

1. In response to the notice issued pursuant to the order dated 01.10.2013, a reply is filed by
the Contemnor No. 1 - General V.K. Singh (Retd.). In the reply, inter alia, it is stated as
follows:-

"... I fully respect the Constitution of India as also the institutions created by it. I have the
highest respect for the Judiciary particularly this Hon'ble Court... I hereby tender an
unqualified apology."

2. Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing for the Contemnor No. 1, states that
the Contemnor No. 1 withdraws the entire statement concerning Judiciary made by him in
Hindi and English to Asia News International (ANI) on 21.09.2013. Learned senior counsel
further states that the Contemnor No. 1 also withdraws all other statements made by him with
regard to this Court in earlier interviews after the order of this Court dated 10.02.2012.

3. The Contemnor No. 1 - General V.K. Singh (Retd.) is personally present. Mr. Ram
Jethmalani, learned senior counsel, made the above statements in his presence.

4. The apology is tendered by the Contemnor No. 1 - General V.K. Singh (Retd.) at the
earliest possible opportunity without contesting the notice at all. The apology tendered by
him appears to us to be bona fide. We accept the same.

5. Contemnor No. 2 - Ramesh Chander Malhotra - in response to the notice has filed his
affidavit on 17.10.2013. In the affidavit, Contemnor No. 2 has stated as follows:-

"... I again on behalf of the Indian Express and my own behalf offer my unqualified complete
sincere apology.."

6. We accept the apology tendered by Contemnor No. 2.   SpotLaw
                                                     1
7. Although in our order dated 23.10.2013, we had indicated that we would like to hear Mr.
F.S. Nariman, learned senior counsel for the Contemnor No. 2 on diverse issues that may
arise for consideration in the Contempt Petition but now since both contemnors have tendered
unqualified and unconditional apology, we do not think any further hearing in the matter is
necessary.

8. We, accordingly, discharge the notice and drop the contempt proceedings.

9. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 22248 of 2013 for intervention is rejected.

2  SpotLaw