New Delhi, September 3, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Supreme Court on Thursday suspended the six-month sentence imposed on YouTuber Gulshan Pahuja in two criminal contempt cases and granted him interim bail, while cautioning him against repeating the conduct that led to his conviction by the Delhi High Court.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu also issued notice on Pahuja’s appeal against his conviction and his bail application, making the matters returnable in the week commencing October 5.
“Till the next date of hearing of the appeal, we order suspension of sentence; consequently, the appellant be released on interim bail,” the bench ordered.
However, the court made the relief conditional on Pahuja refraining from repeating the conduct for which he was convicted.
“We hope and trust that the appellant will refrain from repeating the conduct for which he was convicted for contempt by the High Court. Any recurrence, if brought to our notice, could lead to revocation of this order of interim protection,” the Supreme Court said.
Pahuja, who runs the YouTube channel Fight 4 Judicial Reforms, had approached the apex court challenging Delhi High Court judgments holding him guilty of criminal contempt and subsequently sentencing him to six months’ simple imprisonment in each of the two cases. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
The High Court had also imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 in each case and initially suspended the sentence for 60 days to allow Pahuja to challenge the verdict before the Supreme Court.
The contempt proceedings arose from videos, banners and other online content in which Pahuja allegedly made derogatory and scandalous remarks against judicial officers and the judiciary.
In April, a Delhi High Court division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja held that Pahuja had crossed the line between legitimate criticism and criminal contempt by making sweeping and unverified allegations against judicial officers.
The High Court had observed that advocating judicial reforms, including audio-video recording of court proceedings, was permissible. However, it held that Pahuja’s conduct went beyond legitimate criticism and amounted to an attempt to scandalise the judiciary and undermine public confidence in the justice delivery system.
“If one has to attack a Judicial Officer on his integrity or competence, it must be done with cogent evidence; it cannot be made lightly,” the High Court had observed.
While sentencing Pahuja in May, the High Court noted that he had shown no remorse and had made further scandalous submissions during the hearing, which the court said compounded the contempt.
The Supreme Court had also cautioned Pahuja during proceedings in July against making allegations of judicial corruption without supporting material, observing that such accusations could damage the reputation and careers of judicial officers, particularly in the age of social media.
“Judicial officers, you bring charges of corruption without any supporting material. We are just indicating the allegations. You tarnish the image of judicial officers, and you know how social media reacts. The entire career of a judicial officer is at stake,” the apex court had remarked.
The Supreme Court subsequently granted Pahuja liberty to seek exemption from filing official English translations of vernacular documents in his statutory appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
FOLLOW NOW
