High Court rejects apology tendered by former MP

The HP High Court has not accepted the apology tender by the former MP Lok Sabha Rajan Sushant and his son Dhairya Sushant in a criminal contempt initiated by the court on the allegations that they have tarnished the image of the judiciary in social media.

The court further listed the matter for framing of charges against both of them for July 16 and directed to remain present in the court on the next date.

While rejecting the apology, a division bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja observed that “an apology can be accepted, in case, the conduct for which the apology is given, is such that it can be ‘ignored without compromising the dignity of the court’, or it is intended to be evidence of real contrition. It should be sincere. Apology cannot be accepted, in case, it is hollow, more especially, when there is no regret and repentance.”

The court made these observations after perusing the reply filed by both of them wherein they stated “that any of the words or gestures of the respondents, which are contemptuous in the eyes of the Hon’ble Court, the present respondents, hereby withdraw such words.”

After perusing the reply, the court further observed that “there has been no repentance or remorse on the part of the respondents at the initial stage and even now the respondents are not ready to show any kind of remorse, repentance much less a regret to use of the words, some of which have been taken note as aforesaid. After all, an apology means a regretful apology or excuse for failure. Apology has to be unquestionable in sincerity and has to be tempered with the sense of genuine remorse and repentance and not a calculated strategy, to be permitted to be used as a weapon of defence to escape the rigour of law.”

As per the facts of the case, respondent has uploaded a video on his Facebook account and has made serious allegations not only against the institution of judiciary, but also targeted one of the judges of the court. Taking a serious note of this incident, the court has initiated criminal contempt against both of them.

Though the respondents have tendered apology in this regard the court rejected the same by observing that “going by the sequel of events, we have no difficulty in concluding that the apology tendered herein is nothing but a paper apology, which, in the given facts and circumstances, cannot be accepted. Had the respondents been sincere and honest, they would have made all endeavours to have apologised at the earliest given opportunity. Therefore, the apology cannot be accepted.”

Himachal Tribune