BREAKING: Supreme Court Suspends Gulshan Pahuja’s 6-Month Contempt Sentence, Orders Release

The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu issued notice on Pahuja’s appeal challenging the High Court judgment, as well as his application seeking interim relief.

During the hearing, Pahuja’s counsel submitted that he had already undergone around 48 days of incarceration pursuant to the sentence.

After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court suspended the sentence and directed that Pahuja be released. The Court also directed that the order be served dasti.

The appeal challenges the Delhi High Court’s finding holding Pahuja guilty of criminal contempt and sentencing him to six months’ simple imprisonment.

With the sentence now suspended, Pahuja will remain out of custody pending further proceedings in his appeal before the Supreme Court.

Background

Pahuja is before Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court order from May sentencing him to six months’ simple imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs. 2,000 after holding him guilty of criminal contempt for remarks made against the judiciary in videos uploaded on his YouTube channel, “Fight 4 Judicial Reforms.”

"Judicial officers, you bring them charge of corruption without any supporting material. You tarnish image of judicial officers, and you know how social media reacts. The entire career of the judicial officer is at stake," the bench observed today.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja of the Delhi High Court held that Pahuja had “scandalised the court and lowered the authority of the Court” through his statements and conduct.

“In the present case, as found in our judgment dated 21.04.2026, the contemnor, by his acts, has scandalized the court and lowered the authority of the Court. The contemnor shows no regret for the same. He also does not suggest any course correction. In fact, he maintains that what he did was with the intent of improving the judicial system”, the Court observed.

The Court noted that Pahuja showed “no regret” and continued making objectionable remarks even during the hearing on sentencing.

During oral submissions, Pahuja had stated before High Court, “adaalaton ki manmarzi badhti jaa rahi hai aur main koi nyay ki umeed nahi kar raha” and further remarked that “manmarzi ka dusra arth taanashahi hota hai.” According to the Bench, these remarks aggravated the contempt already established against him. “He, in fact, compounds his contempt by making further scandalous submissions before this Court and thus, evidently he is neither repentant nor deserves any mercy,” the judges observed.

The contempt proceedings arose from videos uploaded by Pahuja featuring interviews with advocates Shiv Narayan Sharma and Deepak Singh, in which derogatory allegations were allegedly made against judges and courts. The matter reached the High Court after three judicial officers referred the videos and accompanying banners for initiation of contempt proceedings. While the two advocates tendered unconditional apologies and stated that they were unaware their interviews would be uploaded online with objectionable thumbnails and captions, the Court accepted their explanations and discharged them from the contempt proceedings.

Pahuja, however, defended his actions throughout the case, claiming that the videos formed part of a campaign seeking judicial reforms and audio-video recording of court proceedings. In an earlier judgment dated April 21, the High Court had already held him guilty under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

During arguments on sentencing, Pahuja also alleged procedural irregularities in the contempt proceedings. He argued that the relevant judicial records had not been summoned, the judicial officers named in the videos were not examined as witnesses, and he had been denied the opportunity to cross-examine them. Rejecting these submissions, the Bench observed that it could not “sit in review” of its earlier judgment and clarified that Pahuja remained free to challenge the verdict in accordance with law.

Explaining why a stringent punishment was necessary, the Court stated, “We also find that by not imposing adequate punishment on him, we may encourage him to repeat these acts in future and to embolden him in doing the same.” The Court directed that the sentences in both contempt matters would run concurrently. However, exercising powers under Section 19(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act, the High Court suspended the sentence for 60 days to enable Pahuja to approach the Supreme Court of India in appeal.

Case Title: Gulshan Pahuja v. High Court of Delhi

Benck: Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu

Hearing Date: September 3, 2026