Back
When Criticism Crosses the Line: Hands Down Maximum Sentence in Contempt Case
A Division Bench of the has delivered a stern message on the limits of public critique of the judiciary. In a judgment pronounced on , Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja sentenced advocate and YouTuber to six months’ plus fine for , holding that his videos had and .
From Videos to Contempt Proceedings
The matter originated when Pahuja uploaded videos making serious allegations against judicial officers. On , the same Bench found him guilty under . The court then granted him an opportunity to address the question of sentence. Instead of seeking , Pahuja filed an application seeking recall of the guilt finding and made fresh oral submissions that the Bench described as “scandalous.”
He argued that the earlier judgment suffered from , that files from the trial court had not been summoned, and that judicial officers named in the videos were neither produced nor cross-examined. He further claimed he expected “no justice” from the Indian judicial system, stating in Hindi that “adaalaton ki manmarzi badhti jaa rahi hai” and equating arbitrariness with “taanashahi.”
Arguments Before the Bench
countered that these submissions were effectively an attempt at review rather than . He highlighted that despite an earlier restraint order, Pahuja had continued uploading videos alleging misconduct by judicial officers—an act, the court noted, that the did not deny. The State’s counsel and the amicus appointed by the Legal Services Committee supported the suggestion that any custodial sentence be suspended for 60 days under Section 19(3) of the Act to enable an appeal to the .
Pahuja, for his part, drew parallels with freedom fighters who refused leniency from colonial authorities, declaring he would neither plead for reduction nor expect justice.
The Court’s Reasoning on Sentence
The Bench observed that Pahuja showed “no regret” and made “no suggestion of course correction.” On the contrary, his conduct during the sentencing hearing had “compounded his contempt.” The judges emphasised that failure to impose adequate punishment might encourage repetition of such acts and embolden others.
Rejecting the ’s reliance on precedents concerning quantum of sentence, the court held that those decisions were inapplicable because they could not be used to reopen the finding of guilt already recorded.
Key Observations
“The 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.”
“He, in fact, compounds his contempt by making further scandalous submissions before this Court and thus, evidently he is neither repentant nor deserves any mercy.”
“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.”
Final Order and Its Immediate Impact
The court imposed the maximum punishment of six months’ along with a fine of ₹2,000 in each of the two contempt cases (CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2025 & 4/2025), with sentences to run concurrently. In default of fine, an additional one month’s imprisonment would follow. Recognising Pahuja’s stated intention to approach the , the Bench suspended the sentence for 60 days under , directing him to surrender before the Registrar General if no further stay is granted by the apex court.
A copy of the order, together with its Hindi translation, was directed to be supplied dasti to the . The judgment underscores that while criticism of the judicial system is permissible, crossing into scandalising conduct without remorse invites the severest sanction the law allows.
