The Supreme Court of India has expressed serious concerns regarding indiscriminate allegations of corruption that could potentially jeopardize the careers of judicial officers. On Monday, Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu addressed this issue while reviewing a petition from YouTuber Gulshan Pahuja, who recently faced a six-month imprisonment sentence by the Delhi High Court for criminal contempt of court. This sentence was a consequence of his scandalous remarks against the judiciary on YouTube.
Pahuja defended himself by stating that his intent was solely to combat judicial corruption and that he did not personally target any judge. In response, the Court acknowledged his cause but cautioned against making unsubstantiated claims of judicial corruption, emphasizing the serious repercussions such actions could entail, especially in the era of social media.
“Without any supporting evidence, you accuse judicial officers of corruption, thereby tarnishing their image. This can severely impact their entire career, and given the way social media operates, the repercussions are substantial,” the Bench remarked.
In May, the Delhi High Court sentenced Pahuja to six months in prison and imposed a ₹2,000 fine due to criminal contempt of court, arising from derogatory statements about the judiciary made in his videos and during court arguments. The High Court noted Pahuja’s comparisons of the judiciary to a dictatorship, citing his comments that he expected no justice from the Indian judicial system and alleging that the courts were acting arbitrarily.
Following his sentencing, Pahuja sought additional time to surrender, which was denied by the Delhi High Court. Consequently, he appealed to the Supreme Court for more time. However, as Pahuja had already surrendered by the time the plea was addressed, the Supreme Court deemed the petition moot.
More Read
“Now that you have surrendered, our options are limited,” the Bench stated.
Pahuja’s legal representative emphasized his client’s commitment to fighting corruption in the judiciary and clarified that Pahuja was not opposed to the judicial institution itself. “He is striving for improvements within the judiciary, not against it,” the counsel argued.
While the Supreme Court refrained from discussing the merits of the case, they noted that Pahuja had already filed an appeal against the High Court’s contempt conviction. His counsel informed the Court that the appeal was pending due to untranslated Hindi documents, which needed rectification before listing.
More Read
The Supreme Court granted Pahuja permission to apply for exemption from translating these documents into English, directing that once such an application is filed, the registry should list the appeal for further consideration. Additionally, the Court indicated its willingness to allow Pahuja to represent himself in the proceedings.
