Gupta v. Shiv Narayan Sharma

1. We, by our judgment dated 21.04.2026, had found the respondent no.2/Mr.Gulshan Pahuja (hereinafter referred to as ‘contemnor’) guilty of having committed criminal contempt of Court as defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and granted him an opportunity to make submissions on the punishment to be awarded to him under Section 12 of the said Act. We, accordingly, issued a notice under Rule 13(1) of the Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court) Rules, 2025 to him for the same, granting him liberty to file his submissions on punishment within a period of two weeks therefrom.

2. In response to the said notice, the respondent no.2 has filed an application being Crl. M.A. 15810/2026, praying for recall and setting aside of our judgment/order dated 21.04.2026 holding him guilty of having committed criminal contempt of Court. He further states that the conviction is vitiated and is violative of his rights under Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice. He has also filed written submissions titled as ‘written submission for debate on the quantum of sentence’.

3. We have also granted him an opportunity of making oral submissions.

4. Mr.Pahuja, the contemnor, submits that our judgment dated 21.04.2026 suffers from a procedural irregularity inasmuch as he was not fully heard while holding him guilty of having committed criminal contempt of Court and that the case files on which he had made the comments in the subject videos were not summoned from the Trial Court nor were the judicial officers, who were named in the videos, produced as witnesses. He submits that he was not given any opportunity to cross-examine them. He further submits that the documents that had been filed along with his reply were not perused by this Bench before passing the said judgment. He also submits that the judgment passed by this Court is incorrect inasmuch as it is pronounced without giving any reasons for holding him guilty of having committed criminal contempt of Court. He submits that as these proceedings are of a criminal nature, the onus of proof always lies on the prosecution, that is, this Court, to show that he has committed contempt of court through his acts and that his statements were not true.

5. He submits that for determining the quantum of punishment, the fact that the judgment holding him guilty of having committed contempt of court is procedurally and otherwise incorrect should also weigh with this Court. He submits that for quantum of sentence, the accused is not to plead only the mitigating circumstances or other circumstances on basis of which the quantum of sentence may be reduced, but can also show that the judgment holding him guilty is itself incorrect.

6. In support, he places reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in C. Muniappan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567; Ankush Maruti Shinde & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 15 SCC 470; Modi Telefibres Ltd. & Ors. v. Sujit Kumar Choudhary & Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 40 and National Fertilizers Limited v. Tuncay Alankus & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 600.

7. We must herein note that during the course of his oral submissions, he again makes scandalous remarks inasmuch as he states that he expects no justice from the Indian judicial system and states ‘adaalaton ki manmarzi badhti jaa rahi hai aur main koi nyay ki umeed nahi kar raha’ and also states ‘manmarzi ka dusra arth taanashahi hota hai’.

8. He submits that he will not ask for a reduction of sentence or expect justice from this Court. In fact, he started citing examples of freedom fighters and others who, on quantum of sentence, had taken a stand that they will not accept any leniency from the British government.

9. He further submits that as far as the respondent no.1 in both these contempt petitions are concerned, they were let off by accepting their apologies, thereby denying him a chance to prove his innocence by cross-examining them.

10. On the other hand, Mr.Prabhakar, the learned Amicus Curiae, submits that the above submissions of the contemnor are not relevant as far as the purposes of punishment are concerned, as they are in nature of seeking a recall/review of our judgment dated 21.04.2026. He submits that, in fact, from the submissions it is very clear that the contemnor has no regret for his actions and, in fact, is compounding the same even in his submissions made before the Court today.

11. He submits that the contemnor has shown no course correction or remorse and in fact, though by the order dated 14.05.2025 passed by a predecessor Bench of this Court, he had been directed not to upload any other videos making allegations against any judicial officer, however, the contemnor has brazenly continued to upload such videos. He submits that a report in this regard was also earlier submitted by him and in the response filed by the contemnor, he does not deny uploading these videos.

12. He submits that in the facts of this case, mere imposition of a fine will not suffice and it calls for imposition of punishment of imprisonment, which he leaves to the discretion of this Court. He, however, suggests that in case the punishment of imprisonment is awarded to the contemnor, he be asked if he intends to file an appeal against the same before the Supreme Court and if he answers in the affirmative, exercising power under Section 19(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act, the sentence be suspended by us for a period of 60 days, that is, the period of limitation for filing of the said appeal. The said course is also supported and suggested by the learned APP and the learned Amicus Curiae appointed by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

13. We have considered the submissions made by the contemnor as also by the learned Amicus Curiae(s) and the learned APP.

14. In the present case, as found in our judgment dated 21.04.2026, the contemnor, by his acts, has scandalized the court and lowered the authority of the Court. The contemnor 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.

15. As noted by us in this order hereinabove, 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.