The Supreme Court has granted major relief to YouTuber Gulshan Pahuja by placing a stay on the six-month prison sentence handed down to him in a criminal contempt case. A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu issued the stay order after taking note of the fact that Pahuja had already spent around 48 days in custody. The apex court directed the authorities to release him immediately and issued a formal notice regarding the matter, adding that a copy of the order would be provided directly (dasti).
Challenging the Delhi High Court Verdict
Gulshan Pahuja had approached the Supreme Court to challenge a judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court, which held him guilty of criminal contempt for leveling allegations against judges and the broader judicial system. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court bench, Pahuja's legal representation pointed out that he had already been detained for nearly 48 days following the High Court order. Upon evaluating the legal arguments, the apex court suspended the execution of the six-month sentence, paving the way for his immediate discharge.
High Court Proceedings and May Conviction
The case originates from a suo motu contempt action initiated by the Delhi High Court against the YouTuber. In May, a division bench of the High Court comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja found Pahuja guilty of criminal contempt of court. In its judgment, the High Court observed that he displayed no remorse for his actions, which led to the imposition of a six-month imprisonment penalty and his subsequent detention.
Objectionable Remarks Made During Hearings
The Delhi High Court had expressed strong disapproval of Pahuja's conduct throughout the legal proceedings. According to the High Court, even while his matter was actively being heard, he continued to make contentious statements against the judicial system. He allegedly remarked that he had no expectation of receiving justice from Indian courts and went on to compare the functioning and alleged arbitrariness of the courts to a dictatorship. While the High Court deemed these statements punishable as contempt, the Supreme Court's intervention now halts the prison sentence pending further review.
