The Supreme Court on Monday (July 20, 2026) cautioned against levelling unsubstantiated corruption allegations against judicial officers, observing that the virality of content on social media could irreparably “tarnish” a Judge’s career. The court was hearing a plea filed by activist Gulshan Pahuja challenging a High Court order refusing to extend the time granted to him to surrender. Mr. Pahuja has been sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for criminal contempt over allegedly derogatory videos targeting judicial officers.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu observed that while it had “sympathies” for Mr. Pahuja, allegations of corruption against judicial officers could not be levelled in the absence of any credible evidence.

“You bring a charge of corruption without any supporting material, and in doing so, you tarnish the image of judicial officers. You know how social media reacts these days. One reel or one post, and the entire career of a judicial officer is at stake. Persons who believe they are very learned and know court processes go on making all sorts of comments, and judicial officers have to live with those comments. We don’t approve of this situation,” the Bench said.

The High Court had, in April, held that the content published on Mr. Pahuja’s YouTube channel, “Fight 4 Judicial Reforms”, was not protected as “free speech” under the Constitution since it contained “personal remarks” against three judicial officers. In May, it sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the maximum punishment prescribed under the law, noting that he had shown neither remorse nor any inclination to mend his conduct despite having already been held guilty of contempt.

The counsel appearing for Mr. Pahuja submitted that an appeal filed under Section 19 of the 1971 Act against the High Court’s order had not been listed for hearing as certain vernacular documents were yet to be translated. He further informed the Bench that Mr. Pahuja had subsequently moved the High Court seeking an extension of time to surrender and serve the sentence. After that request was rejected, he approached the top court seeking similar relief. However, by the time the matter was taken up on Monday, he had already surrendered.

Justice Datta observed that the Bench had initially been inclined to extend the time granted to Mr. Pahuja to surrender. However, since he had already surrendered, the court could no longer grant the relief sought and the petition had become infructuous.

“We were inclined to grant you protection, but once you have surrendered, our hands are tied. You may now go before the High Court,” he said.

The counsel then urged the Bench to exempt Mr. Pahuja from filing official translations of the vernacular documents, arguing that the defects in the appeal could not be cured while he remained in custody. “The defect is that the papers are in Hindi. He couldn’t translate them within time. He is appearing in person. If he remains in jail, the defects cannot be cured. This is our problem,” he said.

Acceding to the request, the Bench granted Mr. Pahuja liberty to file an application seeking exemption from submitting official translations of the vernacular documents. It further directed the Registry to place the appeal before the same Bench, or any other appropriate Bench as assigned by the Chief Justice of India, upon such an application being filed.

“Several vernacular documents have to be translated, on account of which the defects could not be removed. We grant liberty to the petitioner to file an application for exemption from filing official translations. Upon such an application being filed, the Registry shall place the appeal under Section 19 of the 1971 Act before this Bench or any other appropriate Bench,” the court directed.

While making it clear that it was not examining the merits of the appeal at this stage, the Bench declined to entertain the counsel’s submission that the remarks made against the judiciary were in good faith.

“He is trying his level best that things in the judiciary will be good... There is no personal allegation,” the counsel told the Bench.

Justice Datta, however, observed that such allegations, if made without any supporting material, could seriously undermine the standing of judicial officers. He added that the court would examine all submissions when the appeal is taken up for hearing.

The case dates back to 2025, when the High Court took cognisance of a reference made by Charu Asiwal, a civil judge at the Shahdara court, regarding videos and banners uploaded on Mr. Pahuja’s YouTube channel. During interviews hosted on the channel, several lawyers had allegedly made objectionable and derogatory remarks against judicial officers and the judiciary as an institution.

The High Court also initiated contempt proceedings against the lawyers who appeared in the videos but later dropped the proceedings after they tendered unconditional apologies.

Holding Mr. Pahuja guilty of criminal contempt on April 21, the High Court observed that his conduct reflected an intent “to scandalise and lower the authority of not only the Supreme Court but the entire judiciary”.

“If one has to attack a judicial officer on his integrity or competence, it must be done with cogent evidence; it cannot be made lightly. We must remember that such an attack, if made without any basis, undermines the authority of the judicial officer and interferes with the dispensation of justice by him/her without fear or favour...,” the High Court had observed.

On May 16, 2026 the High Court sentenced Mr. Pahuja to six months’ imprisonment under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 observing that he had shown “no regret” for his conduct. “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... By not imposing adequate punishment on him, we may encourage him to repeat these acts in future and embolden him to do the same,” the High Court said.

The court, however, suspended the sentence for 60 days after Mr. Pahuja informed it that he intended to challenge both the April 21 judgment holding him guilty of contempt and the May 16 sentencing order before the Supreme Court.

Published - July 20, 2026 11:16 pm IST