Delhi HC Sentences Contemnor to Six Months' Simple Imprisonment for Scandalising the Court, Finds No Remorse
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court imposed maximum punishment on Gulshan Pahuja after he compounded his criminal contempt by making further scandalous remarks even during the sentencing hearing.
On 16 May 2026, a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja sentenced Gulshan Pahuja to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 in each of two criminal contempt matters, with the sentences to run concurrently. The court had already found Pahuja guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by its earlier judgment dated 21 April 2026. The sentencing order, delivered on 16 May 2026, records that Pahuja not only showed no remorse but actively compounded his contempt by making fresh scandalous remarks from the bar during the very hearing convened to determine his punishment.
The Contempt Proceedings and the Earlier Guilt Finding
The two matters, CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2025 and CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2025, were taken up by the court on its own motion. By the judgment of 21 April 2026, the bench found Pahuja guilty of having committed criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, holding that his acts had scandalised the court and lowered its authority. After recording the guilt finding, the bench granted Pahuja an opportunity to make submissions on the quantum of punishment under Section 12 of the Act and issued a notice to him under Rule 13(1) of the Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court) Rules, 2025, allowing him two weeks to file written submissions on sentence.
In response, Pahuja filed an application, Crl. M.A. 15810/2026, seeking recall and setting aside of the 21 April 2026 judgment. He also filed written submissions styled as “written submission for debate on the quantum of sentence.” The bench additionally granted him an opportunity for oral submissions at the sentencing stage.
Pahuja's Submissions at the Sentencing Stage
Pahuja raised several objections to the guilt finding itself. He contended that the 21 April 2026 judgment suffered from procedural irregularity because he was not fully heard before being found guilty, that the case files on which he had made comments in the subject videos were not summoned from the trial court, and that the judicial officers named in the videos were not produced as witnesses for cross-examination. He also argued that the documents filed with his reply were not perused by the bench before the judgment was passed, and that the judgment gave no reasons for the guilt finding.
He pressed a further argument that in criminal contempt proceedings the onus of proof lies on the prosecution which he characterised as the court itself to establish that he had committed contempt and that his statements were untrue. He relied on four Supreme Court judgments in support: C. Muniappan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567; Ankush Maruti Shinde & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 15 SCC 470; Modi Telefibres Ltd. & Ors. v. Sujit Kumar Choudhary & Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 40; and National Fertilizers Limited v. Tuncay Alankus & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 600.
Pahuja also argued that at the sentencing stage an accused is not confined to pleading mitigating circumstances alone but may also demonstrate that the guilt finding itself is incorrect. He contended that the other respondents in the contempt petitions had been let off after their apologies were accepted, which he said denied him the chance to prove his innocence by cross-examining them.
Significantly, during his oral submissions Pahuja made fresh remarks that the bench recorded as scandalous. He stated that he expected no justice from the Indian judicial system and used the phrases adaalaton ki manmarzi badhti jaa rahi hai aur main koi nyay ki umeed nahi kar raha and manmarzi ka dusra arth taanashahi hota hai. He also stated that he would not ask for a reduction of sentence or expect justice from the court, drawing comparisons to freedom fighters who refused leniency from the British government.
The Amicus Curiae's Position on Sentence
Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, appearing as Amicus Curiae, submitted that Pahuja's arguments at the sentencing stage were in the nature of a recall or review of the 21 April 2026 judgment and were not relevant to the question of punishment. He pointed out that Pahuja had shown no regret and was in fact compounding his contempt through the very submissions being made before the court.
Mr. Prabhakar further submitted that by an order dated 14 May 2025 passed by a predecessor bench, Pahuja had been directed not to upload any further videos making allegations against judicial officers. Despite this, Pahuja had brazenly continued to upload such videos, a fact he did not deny in his response. The Amicus Curiae submitted that mere imposition of a fine would not suffice and that the facts called for imprisonment, leaving the precise term to the court's discretion.
He also suggested a practical course: if imprisonment were awarded, the court should ask Pahuja whether he intended to appeal to the Supreme Court, and if so, exercise the power under Section 19(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act to suspend the sentence for 60 days, the period of limitation for filing such an appeal. The Additional Public Prosecutor and the Amicus Curiae appointed by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee both supported this course.
The Bench's Reasoning on Punishment
The bench declined to revisit the guilt finding. It held that it could not sit in review of its own judgment dated 21 April 2026 and that Pahuja had a full right to challenge that judgment in accordance with law through the appropriate appellate forum. The Supreme Court judgments cited by Pahuja were held to be inapplicable to the facts of the present case.
On the question of sentence, the bench found that Pahuja had scandalised the court and lowered its authority, as already determined on 21 April 2026. He had shown no regret and suggested no course correction. He maintained that his acts were intended to improve the judicial system. The bench recorded that he had compounded his contempt by making further scandalous submissions during the sentencing hearing itself, and that he was neither repentant nor deserving of mercy.
The bench also took into account the risk of recurrence. It observed that not imposing adequate punishment might encourage Pahuja to repeat his acts and embolden him further. The continued uploading of videos in defiance of the 14 May 2025 direction reinforced this concern.
These findings led the bench to conclude that the cases called for the maximum punishment available under the Act.
Order
The bench imposed simple imprisonment for six months along with a fine of Rs. 2,000 on Gulshan Pahuja in each of the two matters. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. In the event of default in payment of the fine in either or both matters, a further punishment of one month's simple imprisonment was imposed for the matter in which the default occurs.
Since Pahuja stated his intention to challenge both the 21 April 2026 judgment and the sentencing order before the Supreme Court, the bench exercised its power under Section 19(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act and suspended the sentence for a period of 60 days from 16 May 2026, subject to any further orders that may be passed by the Supreme Court. The bench directed that if the Supreme Court does not pass an order suspending the sentence within that period, Pahuja shall on his own surrender before the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court forthwith on expiry of the 60-day period.
Both contempt cases were disposed of. The bench directed that a copy of the order, along with a Hindi translation, be given dasti to Pahuja, and that a copy be sent to the Registrar General for information and compliance.