Senior counsel Prakash Jani, representing the accused officers, argued before the bench of justices AS Supehia and Gita Gopi that while the officers' actions were not proper or acceptable, they should not be considered custodial torture, and therefore should not invite contempt charges. He stated, "Giving three to six stick blows on the buttock of applicants… though not proper and acceptable, it would not constitute custodial torture as to punish Respondent No 2 (Parmar) for contempt of court."

A V Parmar, the police inspector facing contempt charges, emphasized in his affidavit, "Striking the victim on the buttocks with a stick, while unacceptable, does not amount to custodial torture and hence does not invite contempt charges."

All four officers tendered unconditional apologies for their actions, expressing remorse for the incident.

The high court, after hearing the submissions made by the accused officers, called for a response from the complainant Muslim men regarding the officers' plea. The court adjourned the hearing until Monday, highlighting the complexity of the case and the questions it raises about the boundaries of custodial torture and the application of contempt of court charges in such situations.