Maximum Imprisonment Awarded for Scandalizing the Court Without Remorse or Intent to Course-Correct

In brief

The question

1. Whether the judgment of conviction dated 21.04.2026 should be recalled or set aside based on alleged procedural irregularities and constitutional violations.

The court held

The Court held that the contemnor did not deserve mercy due to his unrepentant conduct and persistent scandalization of the judiciary.

It also directed

The Court sentenced Mr. Gulshan Pahuja to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 in each of the two matters, with the sentences to run concurrently. Failure to pay the fine results in an additional month of simple imprisonment. However, exercising power under Section 19(3) of the Act, the Court suspended the sentence for 60 days to allow the contemnor to appeal to the Supreme Court, subject to his surrender before the Registrar General if no stay is granted.

01Facts

The respondent no. 2, Mr. Gulshan Pahuja ("contemnor"), was found guilty of criminal contempt of Court via judgment dated 21.04.2026 for scandalizing the court through videos uploaded online.

pp. 1-2

The Court issued notice under Rule 13(1) of the Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court) Rules, 2025, to hear him on the quantum of punishment.

p. 2

The contemnor filed an application (Crl. M.A. 15810/2026) to recall the conviction, alleging procedural irregularities, violation of constitutional rights (Articles 14, 20(3), and 21), and lack of opportunity to cross-examine judicial officers named in his videos.

pp. 2-3

During the hearing on sentencing, the contemnor made further scandalous remarks, stating he expected no justice from the "dictatorial" Indian judicial system.

p. 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the judgment of conviction dated 21.04.2026 should be recalled or set aside based on alleged procedural irregularities and constitutional violations.

p. 2

ii.2. What is the appropriate quantum of punishment to be awarded under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, given the contemnor's conduct and lack of remorse.

p. 2, 5

03Law Applied

The Court applied Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines criminal contempt as acts that scandalize or lower the authority of the court.

pp. 1-2

Punishment was determined under Section 12 of the Act, which provides for simple imprisonment and fine.

p. 2, 6

Procedurally, the Court adhered to Rule 13(1) of the Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court) Rules, 2025.

p. 2

Regarding the stay of execution, the Court invoked Section 19(3) of the Act, which allows for the suspension of a sentence to permit the contemnor to file an appeal.

p. 5, 6

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 2 Section 12 Section 19

04Reasoning

The Court rejected the contemnor’s plea to recall the conviction, noting that it cannot sit in review of its own judgment and that the contemnor’s remedy lies in a legal challenge/appeal.

p. 6

In analyzing the quantum of punishment, the Court observed that the contemnor displayed no remorse or regret; instead, he compounded the contempt by making fresh scandalous remarks in open court, such as equating judicial discretion with "tyranny".

pp. 4-5

The Court noted that the contemnor had brazenly violated a previous interim order (dated 14.05.2025) which prohibited him from uploading further defamatory videos.

p. 5

The Court reasoned that a mere fine would be insufficient, as the contemnor's defiant stance suggested he would repeat the offenses unless an adequate deterrent was imposed.

p. 5, 6