Review Power Is Not Appellate Jurisdiction in Disguise: Delhi High Court in Contempt Case - 2026-02-20

Delhi High Court Rejects Attempt to Re-agitate Contempt Orders, Curbs Procedural Delays

In a clear reaffirmation of the limits of legal review, the Delhi High Court has dismissed applications filed by the respondent in an ongoing criminal contempt case. The court, led by a bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Jain, ruled that the applications filed by Mr. Gulshan Pahuja lacked merit and constituted an attempt to delay proceedings.

Background of the Contempt Dispute

The proceedings originate from Court on its own motion vs. Shiv Narayan Sharma Adv. & Ors. (CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2025) , initiated after videos were published on the YouTube channel "Fight 4 Judicial Reforms." Following a prima facie examination, the court noted that the contents and thumbnails of the videos contained disparaging and abusive remarks against the Supreme Court and other judicial bodies, effectively scandalizing and lowering the authority of the judiciary.

In previous hearings, the court, in a move to ensure transparency and fairness, had permitted the respondent to audio-video record the proceedings despite the lack of specific legal grounds, primarily because he was defending himself without legal assistance. However, the respondent recently sought a review and modification of the orders passed on 23.12.2025 and 19.01.2026.

The Arguments: A Bid to Re-litigate?

The respondent, appearing in person, requested a re-hearing and a formal modification of the previous orders. The court observed that the arguments raised in these applications were substantially similar to earlier requests that had already been declined by the roster bench. The court noted that these applications appeared to be an attempt to re-agitate issues that had already been settled or were procedural in nature.

Legal Analysis: The Bounds of Review

The High Court underscored a fundamental principle of judicial procedure: the power of review is not an appellate jurisdiction in disguise. By attempting to modify settled orders, the applicant failed to provide any "error apparent on the face of the record" that would be required to warrant a review under the prevailing legal framework. The court concluded that the applications were devoid of any substantial or compelling reasons.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies the following points regarding the integrity of court proceedings:

• On the Nature of Review: "It is well settled that the power of review cannot be exercised as an appellate jurisdiction in disguise."
• On the Merits of the Plea: "The present applications do not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record, no ground, much less any substantial or compelling reason, has been made out warranting review, modification, or rehearing."
• On Procedural Strategy: "The reliefs sought are, in substance, an attempt to re-agitate issues already considered and decided or to delay the proceedings."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court dismissed both applications, noting that they were "without any merit and substance." This order acts as a strict cautionary note against the misuse of review petitions aimed at stalling judicial proceedings, particularly in sensitive cases involving the dignity and authority of the court itself. The case is now set to be listed before the roster bench on February 26, 2026, for further progression.

The court has ensured compliance with accessibility standards by directing that a Hindi-translated copy of the order be provided to the respondent.