After the Delhi government's Peace & Harmony Committee issued summons to Mohan on two occasions allegedly stating that his non-appearance would be treated as a breach of privilege, Mohan had moved the Supreme Court. The Committee had summoned Mohan as an expert witness to ascertain concerns pertaining to the use of Facebook for disseminating hateful content during this year's Delhi Riots.

When the petition was heard by the Supreme Court on September 23, the Court had issued notice and had directed the Committee not to hold a meeting regarding this issue till further orders.

The affidavit stated the following: 

1. No coercive action intended: "No coercive action has been taken against the Petitioner No. 1 (Ajit Mohan) and none was intended if the Petitioner No. 1 merely attended and participated in the proceedings as a witness. It is also important to note that the proceedings are being conducted in the most transparent manner with the live broadcast and therefore there is no question of any apprehension in respect of the proceeding either by the Petitioner No. 1 or anyone else."
2. No breach of privilege or contempt: The Committee, at no point, has said that Mohan is in breach of privilege or is in contempt, the Delhi government's affidavit sought to place on the record.
3. Mohan cannot 'pick and choose': The contention that Mohan could not have been put "in the pain of punishment" by being asked to appear before the Committee and that his Article 19(1) right also included the right to remain silent and not to depose has been refuted, with the Assembly averring that Mohan has already appeared before Parliamentary Committees, not just in India but also in the US, for giving opinions and expert comments. The right to remain silent cannot be exercised selectively and Mohan may not "pick and choose" which body he wants to depose before and which to refrain from, the affidavit states. Invoking Article 19(1)(a) in this case, as such, "prima facie is not genuine or bona fide".
4. Summoned as an expert witness: During the previous hearing, Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Delhi government, told the Court that Mohan was summoned as an expert witness without any threat of coercion. This position is further elaborated in the affidavit, which says that the first summons had invited Mohan's presence before the Committee for his response on certain issues pertaining to the use of Facebook during the riots earlier this year.
5. Jurisdiction: The petitioner ought to have approached the Delhi High Court in the first instance, considering the fact that Article 32 jurisdiction of the Apex Court is limited to instances of violation of fundamental rights.

The petition before the Court is "premature and misconceived", and deserves to be dismissed, the affidavit stated.