Court On Its Own Motion vs Deepak Singh, Advocate And Anr.

$~2 & 3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 16.05.2026

+ CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2025 & CRL.M.A. 2184/2026,
CRL.M.A. 9152/2026, CRL.M.A. 15810/2026
+ CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2025

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Harsh Prabhakar, Adv.
(Amicus Curiae) with
Mr.Dhruv Chaudhry,
Mr.Shubham Sourav and
Mr.Vijit Singh, Advs.
Mr.Vivek Kumar Tandon, Adv.
(DHCLSC) with Ms.Laxmi
Gupta, Adv.
versus

SHIV NARAYAN SHARMA ADV. AND ORS.
DEEPAK SINGH, ADVOCATE AND ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr.Gulshan Pahuja, R-2 present
in person.
Mr.Aman Usman, APP with
Mr.Manvendra Yadav, Adv for
the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA


NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. We, by our judgment dated 21.04.2026, had found the
respondent no.2/Mr.Gulshan Pahuja (hereinafter referred to as
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:18.05.2026
18:59:50
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2025 & 4/2025 Page 1 of 7

‘ contemnor ’) guilty of having committed criminal contempt of Court
as defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
(hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Act ’) and granted him an opportunity to
make submissions on the punishment to be awarded to him under
Section 12 of the said Act. We, accordingly, issued a notice under
Rule 13(1) of the Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court) Rules, 2025
to him for the same, granting him liberty to file his submissions on
punishment within a period of two weeks therefrom.
2. In response to the said notice, the respondent no.2 has filed an
application being Crl. M.A. 15810/2026, praying for recall and setting
aside of our judgment/order dated 21.04.2026 holding him guilty of
having committed criminal contempt of Court. He further states that
the conviction is vitiated and is violative of his rights under Articles
14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India and the principles of
natural justice. He has also filed written submissions titled as ‘ written
submission for debate on the quantum of sentence ’.
3. We have also granted him an opportunity of making oral
submissions.
4. Mr.Pahuja, the contemnor, submits that our judgment dated
21.04.2026 suffers from a procedural irregularity inasmuch as he was
not fully heard while holding him guilty of having committed criminal
contempt of Court and that the case files on which he had made the
comments in the subject videos were not summoned from the Trial
Court nor were the judicial officers, who were named in the videos,
produced as witnesses. He submits that he was not given any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:18.05.2026
18:59:50
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2025 & 4/2025 Page 2 of 7

opportunity to cross-examine them. He further submits that the
documents that had been filed along with his reply were not perused
by this Bench before passing the said judgment. He also submits that
the judgment passed by this Court is incorrect inasmuch as it is
pronounced without giving any reasons for holding him guilty of
having committed criminal contempt of Court. He submits that as
these proceedings are of a criminal nature, the onus of proof always
lies on the prosecution, that is, this Court, to show that he has
committed contempt of court through his acts and that his statements
were not true.
5. He submits that for determining the quantum of punishment, the
fact that the judgment holding him guilty of having committed
contempt of court is procedurally and otherwise incorrect should also
weigh with this Court. He submits that for quantum of sentence, the
accused is not to plead only the mitigating circumstances or other
circumstances on basis of which the quantum of sentence may be
reduced, but can also show that the judgment holding him guilty is
itself incorrect.
6. In support, he places reliance on the judgments of the Supreme
Court in 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.
7. We must herein note that during the course of his oral
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:18.05.2026
18:59:50
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2025 & 4/2025 Page 3 of 7

submissions, he again makes scandalous remarks inasmuch as he
states that he expects no justice from the Indian judicial system and
states ‘ adaalaton ki manmarzi badhti jaa rahi hai aur main koi nyay ki
umeed nahi kar raha ’ and also states ‘ manmarzi ka dusra arth
taanashahi hota hai’.
8. He submits that he will not ask for a reduction of sentence or
expect justice from this Court. In fact, he started citing examples of
freedom fighters and others who, on quantum of sentence, had taken a
stand that they will not accept any leniency from the British
government.
9. He further submits that as far as the respondent no.1 in both
these contempt petitions are concerned, they were let off by accepting
their apologies, thereby denying him a chance to prove his innocence
by cross-examining them.
10. On the other hand, Mr.Prabhakar, the learned Amicus Curiae ,
submits that the above submissions of the contemnor are not relevant
as far as the purposes of punishment are concerned, as they are in
nature of seeking a recall/review of our judgment dated 21.04.2026.
He submits that, in fact, from the submissions it is very clear that the
contemnor has no regret for his actions and, in fact, is compounding
the same even in his submissions made before the Court today.
11. He submits that the contemnor has shown no course correction
or remorse and in fact, though by the order dated 14.05.2025 passed
by a predecessor Bench of this Court, he had been directed not to
upload any other videos making allegations against any judicial
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:18.05.2026
18:59:50
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2025 & 4/2025 Page 4 of 7

officer, however, the contemnor has brazenly continued to upload
such videos. He submits that a report in this regard was also earlier
submitted by him and in the response filed by the contemnor, he does
not deny uploading these videos.
12. He submits that in the facts of this case, mere imposition of a
fine will not suffice and it calls for imposition of punishment of
imprisonment, which he leaves to the discretion of this Court. He,
however, suggests that in case the punishment of imprisonment is
awarded to the contemnor, he be asked if he intends to file an appeal
against the same before the Supreme Court and if he answers in the
affirmative, exercising power under Section 19(3) of the Contempt of
Courts Act, the sentence be suspended by us for a period of 60 days,
that is, the period of limitation for filing of the said appeal. The said
course is also supported and suggested by the learned APP and the
learned Amicus Curiae appointed by the Delhi High Court Legal
Services Committee.
13. We have considered the submissions made by the contemnor as
also by the learned Amicus Curiae(s) and the learned APP.
14. 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.
15. As noted by us in this order hereinabove, he, in fact, compounds
his contempt by making further scandalous submissions before this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:18.05.2026
18:59:50
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2025 & 4/2025 Page 5 of 7

Court and thus, evidently he is neither repentant nor deserves any
mercy.
16. 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.
17. As far as his submissions on our judgment dated 21.04.2026 are
concerned, we cannot sit in review of the said judgment and the
contemnor has full right and had an opportunity to challenge the same
in accordance with law. We, therefore, do not deem it fit to revisit all
his submissions in our present order. The judgments cited by him are,
therefore, not applicable to the facts of the present case.
18. Keeping in view the above, we are of the opinion that these
cases call for the imposition of the maximum punishment on the
contemnor. We, therefore, impose the punishment of simple
imprisonment for a term of six months along with a fine of Rs.2000/-
on the contemnor, that is, Mr.Gulshan Pahuja, in each of these
matters. The sentence shall run concurrently for these matters. In
failure to pay the fine in either or both the matters, we impose a
further punishment of simple imprisonment of one month on the
contemnor for the matter where he commits this default.
19. As the contemnor has stated that he intends to challenge our
judgment dated 21.04.2026 and the order passed today before the
Supreme Court, we, exercising our power under Section 19(3) of the
Contempt of Courts Act, suspend the sentence awarded to the
contemnor for a period of 60 days from today, subject to any further
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:18.05.2026
18:59:50
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2025 & 4/2025 Page 6 of 7

orders that may be passed by the Supreme Court. In case an order
suspending the sentence of the contemnor is not passed by the
Supreme Court, the contemnor shall on his own surrender before the
Registrar General of this Court forthwith on expiry of the above-
mentioned period.
20. These matters are disposed of in the above terms. Pending
applications, if any, are also disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

21. We again express our gratitude to both the learned Amicus
Curiae and the learned APP for assisting us.
22. A copy of this order, as well as translated copy of the order in
Hindi, be given dasti to Mr.Gulshan Pahuja.
23. Copy of this order be sent to the learned Registrar General for
information and compliance.


NAVIN CHAWLA, J


RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
MAY 16, 2026/ ns/as

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:18.05.2026
18:59:50
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2025 & 4/2025 Page 7 of 7