New Delhi, Sep 3 — 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 for which he was convicted 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 on his application seeking bail, making them 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," it ordered.
However, the Justice Datta-led Bench made it clear that the relief would be subject to Pahuja refraining from repeating the conduct that led to his conviction for contempt.
"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 top court said.
Pahuja, who runs the YouTube channel "Fight 4 Judicial Reforms", had approached the Supreme Court challenging the 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, with the sentences directed to run concurrently.
The Delhi High Court had also imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 in each case and suspended the sentence for 60 days to enable him to challenge the judgment before the Supreme Court.
The contempt proceedings arose from videos, banners and other online content in which Pahuja had made derogatory and scandalous remarks against judicial officers and the judiciary.
In April, a 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, but Pahuja’s conduct went beyond healthy criticism and was aimed at scandalising the judiciary and lowering 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 Delhi High Court had recorded that he showed no remorse and instead made further scandalous submissions during the hearing, thereby compounding the contempt.
Pahuja was sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2,000 in each of the two contempt cases, with the sentences to run concurrently. However, the sentence was suspended for 60 days to enable him to challenge the conviction before the Supreme Court.
In July, while considering Pahuja’s plea arising from the Delhi High Court’s refusal to extend the time granted to him to surrender, the Supreme Court had noted that the plea had become infructuous as he had already surrendered. At the time, the Justice Datta-led Bench had cautioned him against making allegations of judicial corruption without supporting material, observing that such accusations could tarnish 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 top court had remarked.
The apex court had 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.