Synopsis

Zepto, India's fastest commerce company established in 2021, is readying itself for a public listing with the aim to raise greater than ₹10,000 crore, anticipated to come in July–September 2026. The updated DRHP paints a picture of a company which more than doubled its turnover from ₹11,306 crore in FY19 to the current level of ₹22,624 crore in FY26, but incurred losses of ₹5,905 crore in the same period. The key conflicts in the IPO are regulatory restriction by FEMA, the uncertain valuation in the public market, and fierce competition from Blinkit and Instamart.

Origins: A Stanford drop-out idea that exceeded its founders' expectations

Aadit Palicha was nineteen years old when he quit Stanford to solve the problem of grocery supply chain in India. Kaivalya Vohra was 18 years old. 

They were originally a kirana store aggregator, known as ‘KiranaKart’, but it did not take off and in 2021, they started from scratch based on one bold idea – grocery delivery in just 10 minutes from specially designed micro-warehouses available within the city.

Aadit Palicha and Kaivalya Vohra, both former Stanford dropouts, founded Zepto in 2021 and it has established itself as one of India's fastest-growing startups, alongside others like Zomato-owned Blinkit and Swiggy's Instamart in the country's fiercely competitive quick-commerce market. 

Zepto’s IPO filing reveals fast growth, bigger losses, and a valuation question nobody’s answered yet

It was an audacious model, in the sense that it was very expensive, very complicated and completely reliant on the density of the city. 

In three years, Zepto had become one of the most-funded consumer technology startups in India, and one of the most-watched.

The IPO Architecture: What Zepto is Applying and Why

Zepto has filed its Updated Draft Red Herring Prospectus (UDRHP) with SEBI on June 9, 2026, intending to raise ₹8,010 crore through fresh issue and the offer-for-sale (OFS) segment which will make the company the first dedicated quick-commerce company to list on the domestic stock exchanges. 

Zepto IPO News

The company plans to go public in the July-September quarter of 2026, depending on regulatory approval and market appetite. 

The investment banks that have been engaged include Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Axis Capital, HSBC, JM Financial, IIFL Securities and Motilal Oswal with Morgan Stanley expected to lead the issue. 

Zepto IPO : Details, Timelines And Valuation Analysis

Most importantly, the founders aren't selling. Aadit Palicha and Kaivalya Vohra don't have any shares which are up for OFS. The promoter group, along with their families and family offices, hold about 19.6% of the company.

The OFS is investor-driven and the top chunk of it is from entities of Nexus Venture, which will sell a total of 8.78 crore shares. 

Inside Zepto's Updated DRHP: IPO Size, Investor Selloff, Risks and Growth Plans

The majority of the fresh issue proceeds will go towards Zepto's expansion of dark-store network, with ₹1,629 crore allocated to around 1,900 dark stores. 

The remaining lease payment for dark stores has been allocated ₹1735 crores till FY30 and for technology and cloud infrastructure, it has allocated ₹1325 crores.

The numbers in the UDRHP convey two messages at once

Zepto said its revenue stood at ₹22,624 crore in the last financial year, which was more than double the ₹11,110 crore it posted in FY25, which also doubled from FY24's Rs 4,454 crore. 

That is three years in a row of revenues rising by more than 100 per cent, something hardly any Indian consumer company has achieved.

Zepto's IPO Ambitions Now Come With An Unwanted Regulatory Distraction - The Logical Indian

In FY26, the startup has handled over 640 million orders, which is almost double that from FY25. Annual transacting users rose to almost 48 million. 

As the network grew to 1139 dark stores, orders per store still remained on the rise, indicating that as the network expands so does orders. 

The other story is then. In FY26, Zepto had a net loss of ₹59.1 billion (about $617 million) as against a net loss of ₹47.0 billion in FY25. 

The company admitted in its filing that it could keep making losses and possibly not maintain its growth trend.

There are structural reasons for optimism of the advertising vertical. The advertising revenue of Zepto has surged by over 151 per cent year-on-year to ₹16.4 billion in FY26, even better than its headline revenue growth. 

Its ad arm growth suggests a bigger change in its revenue model, which Amazon has been doing well with by monetizing its marketplace with high-margin advertising. 

Zepto’s IPO filing reveals fast growth, bigger losses, and a valuation question nobody’s answered yet

On profitability, however, which is most important to the public market investor, Zepto is behind.
Zepto's loss comes to ₹1,248 crore in the March 2026 quarter as compared to ₹858 crore loss of Instamart and adjusted EBITDA profit of ₹37 crore for Blinkit. 

The Regulatory Overhang: FEMA and the ED

The UDRHP revealed a development which has attracted as much attention as the financial numbers themselves.

Frequently presented by the Enforcement Directorate under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), the summons sought a large number of documents, such as specific invoices, bank files, company holding structures, audited statements from FY21, shareholding details, loans and guarantees. 

Zepto Files for Massive $1B Zepto IPO: Huge $710M Losses Meet 103% Growth – Should You Invest?

Kaivalya Vohra was brought before agency on April 17 and April 22 while Aadit Palicha was brought before them on April 20 and May 15. 

Both founders signed all the documents they were asked to sign and then each gave further details requested by investigators. 

Zepto said since the updated filing date, it hasn't heard any more from the ED. The company has disclosed the same in the risk factors and litigation sections of public offering documents. 
But in the filing, the possibility of future examinations, fines or legal action is expressly stated.

The Unanswered Question.The Unanswered Question: Valuation

In October 2025, Zepto announced the closing of a $450 million Series H round led by California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) at a valuation of $7 billion. General Catalyst, Avra, Lightspeed, StepStone, and Nexus Venture Partners participated in the round. 

The key uncertainty in the listing of this new IPO is whether that $7 billion number is accurate. People familiar with the situation say a number of mutual funds and family offices that had previewed the company ahead of the IPO have had valuations well below the last private round.

Some market participants have suggested that the reset could be at $5.6-5.95 billion, representing 15-20 per cent discount from the October 2025 level. 

Some of the major shareholders are not selling and include Lightspeed, StepStone, Glade Brook and Y Combinator. Some analysts are taking that as an indicator of confidence in the prospect of post-listing appreciation, while others are seeing it as a lack of confidence in the current price. 

The market is turning into a sector on a trajectory towards scale

The quick-commerce industry in India has been growing in Gross Merchandise Value from about ₹963 billion in CY2025 to expected growth of 5-7 times to ₹5.1–7.1 trillion by CY2030. 

Zepto is the second-largest player in a three-way race in public markets. The company now has more than 20 per cent of the quick-commerce market, which is approximately equivalent to that of Swiggy Instamart, while Blinkit holds the No.1 position.

The IPO is essentially a test of India's public markets to price growth before profitability in a capital-intensive business. If Zepto decides to go public in the July-Sep period, this will be the benchmark it sets for itself and for all other Indian consumer-tech businesses hoping to get a listing on Dalal Street.

Zepto, India's fastest commerce company established in 2021, is readying itself for a public listing with the aim to raise greater than ₹10,000 crore, anticipated to come in July–September 2026. The updated DRHP paints a picture of a company which more than doubled its turnover from ₹11,306 crore in FY19 to the current level of ₹22,624 crore in FY26, but incurred losses of ₹5,905 crore in the same period. The key conflicts in the IPO are regulatory restriction by FEMA, the uncertain valuation in the public market, and fierce competition from Blinkit and Instamart.

Origins: A Stanford drop-out idea that exceeded its founders' expectations

Aadit Palicha was nineteen years old when he quit Stanford to solve the problem of grocery supply chain in India. Kaivalya Vohra was 18 years old. 

They were originally a kirana store aggregator, known as ‘KiranaKart’, but it did not take off and in 2021, they started from scratch based on one bold idea – grocery delivery in just 10 minutes from specially designed micro-warehouses available within the city.

Aadit Palicha and Kaivalya Vohra, both former Stanford dropouts, founded Zepto in 2021 and it has established itself as one of India's fastest-growing startups, alongside others like Zomato-owned Blinkit and Swiggy's Instamart in the country's fiercely competitive quick-commerce market. 

Zepto’s IPO filing reveals fast growth, bigger losses, and a valuation question nobody’s answered yet

It was an audacious model, in the sense that it was very expensive, very complicated and completely reliant on the density of the city. 

In three years, Zepto had become one of the most-funded consumer technology startups in India, and one of the most-watched.

The IPO Architecture: What Zepto is Applying and Why

Zepto has filed its Updated Draft Red Herring Prospectus (UDRHP) with SEBI on June 9, 2026, intending to raise ₹8,010 crore through fresh issue and the offer-for-sale (OFS) segment which will make the company the first dedicated quick-commerce company to list on the domestic stock exchanges. 

The company plans to go public in the July-September quarter of 2026, depending on regulatory approval and market appetite. 

The investment banks that have been engaged include Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Axis Capital, HSBC, JM Financial, IIFL Securities and Motilal Oswal with Morgan Stanley expected to lead the issue. 

Zepto IPO : Details, Timelines And Valuation Analysis

Most importantly, the founders aren't selling. Aadit Palicha and Kaivalya Vohra don't have any shares which are up for OFS. The promoter group, along with their families and family offices, hold about 19.6% of the company.

The OFS is investor-driven and the top chunk of it is from entities of Nexus Venture, which will sell a total of 8.78 crore shares. 

Inside Zepto's Updated DRHP: IPO Size, Investor Selloff, Risks and Growth Plans

The majority of the fresh issue proceeds will go towards Zepto's expansion of dark-store network, with ₹1,629 crore allocated to around 1,900 dark stores. 

The remaining lease payment for dark stores has been allocated ₹1735 crores till FY30 and for technology and cloud infrastructure, it has allocated ₹1325 crores.

The numbers in the UDRHP convey two messages at once

Zepto said its revenue stood at ₹22,624 crore in the last financial year, which was more than double the ₹11,110 crore it posted in FY25, which also doubled from FY24's Rs 4,454 crore. 

That is three years in a row of revenues rising by more than 100 per cent, something hardly any Indian consumer company has achieved.

Zepto's IPO Ambitions Now Come With An Unwanted Regulatory Distraction - The Logical Indian

In FY26, the startup has handled over 640 million orders, which is almost double that from FY25. Annual transacting users rose to almost 48 million. 

As the network grew to 1139 dark stores, orders per store still remained on the rise, indicating that as the network expands so does orders. 

The other story is then. In FY26, Zepto had a net loss of ₹59.1 billion (about $617 million) as against a net loss of ₹47.0 billion in FY25. 

The company admitted in its filing that it could keep making losses and possibly not maintain its growth trend.

There are structural reasons for optimism of the advertising vertical. The advertising revenue of Zepto has surged by over 151 per cent year-on-year to ₹16.4 billion in FY26, even better than its headline revenue growth. 

Its ad arm growth suggests a bigger change in its revenue model, which Amazon has been doing well with by monetizing its marketplace with high-margin advertising. 

On profitability, however, which is most important to the public market investor, Zepto is behind.
Zepto's loss comes to ₹1,248 crore in the March 2026 quarter as compared to ₹858 crore loss of Instamart and adjusted EBITDA profit of ₹37 crore for Blinkit. 

The UDRHP revealed a development which has attracted as much attention as the financial numbers themselves.

Frequently presented by the Enforcement Directorate under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), the summons sought a large number of documents, such as specific invoices, bank files, company holding structures, audited statements from FY21, shareholding details, loans and guarantees. 

Zepto Files for Massive $1B Zepto IPO: Huge $710M Losses Meet 103% Growth – Should You Invest?

Kaivalya Vohra was brought before agency on April 17 and April 22 while Aadit Palicha was brought before them on April 20 and May 15. 

Both founders signed all the documents they were asked to sign and then each gave further details requested by investigators. 

Zepto said since the updated filing date, it hasn't heard any more from the ED. The company has disclosed the same in the risk factors and litigation sections of public offering documents. 
But in the filing, the possibility of future examinations, fines or legal action is expressly stated.

The Unanswered Question.The Unanswered Question: Valuation

In October 2025, Zepto announced the closing of a $450 million Series H round led by California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) at a valuation of $7 billion. General Catalyst, Avra, Lightspeed, StepStone, and Nexus Venture Partners participated in the round. 

The key uncertainty in the listing of this new IPO is whether that $7 billion number is accurate. People familiar with the situation say a number of mutual funds and family offices that had previewed the company ahead of the IPO have had valuations well below the last private round.

Some market participants have suggested that the reset could be at $5.6-5.95 billion, representing 15-20 per cent discount from the October 2025 level. 

Some of the major shareholders are not selling and include Lightspeed, StepStone, Glade Brook and Y Combinator. Some analysts are taking that as an indicator of confidence in the prospect of post-listing appreciation, while others are seeing it as a lack of confidence in the current price. 

The market is turning into a sector on a trajectory towards scale

The quick-commerce industry in India has been growing in Gross Merchandise Value from about ₹963 billion in CY2025 to expected growth of 5-7 times to ₹5.1–7.1 trillion by CY2030. 

Zepto is the second-largest player in a three-way race in public markets. The company now has more than 20 per cent of the quick-commerce market, which is approximately equivalent to that of Swiggy Instamart, while Blinkit holds the No.1 position.

The IPO is essentially a test of India's public markets to price growth before profitability in a capital-intensive business. If Zepto decides to go public in the July-Sep period, this will be the benchmark it sets for itself and for all other Indian consumer-tech businesses hoping to get a listing on Dalal Street.

Zepto's Billion-Dollar Market Debut

Trevor Hise came into the world to be a scientist and engineer working for SpaceX, but his parents had hoped that he would have a more stable, more traditional career. Rather he chose a new rocket company which was, at the time, no household name. 

That bet seems to be proving to be a lucrative one over 10 years, as SpaceX is ready to go public on June 12, in what is said to be the largest IPO in history. 

SpaceX cafeteria workers poised to become millionaires after blockbuster IPO — 4,400 employees set to hit 7-figures

A Record-Breaking Listing

The IPO is expected to generate $75 billion, with 555.6 million shares priced at $135 each, making the valuation of the company about $1.75 trillion. The offering is reportedly oversubscribed by almost 3.5 to 4 times as demand has reached $250 billion. SpaceX will make its debut on the Nasdaq under the symbol SPCX.

Meet the SpaceX employees who are set to become multimillionaires thanks to its IPO: from execs to even welders

The event became a turning point in the workforce for company founder Tom Mueller, who was the first person to join the company. Elon Musk, he said, "always talked about the importance of equity over pay for long-term employees" and that is happening now. 

SpaceX IPO: Largest in History Set for NASDAQ Debut 

The lives of thousands of New Millionaires will be turned upside down

Over 4,400 employees, present and former, of SpaceX are projected to see their net worth multiply by a million once the listing is complete. Of these, about 400 of them could have stakes of $100 million or more. The study, done by the San Francisco investment platform Hill.com, was reported for the first time by The New York Times. 

Most of all, this wealth is not limited to the top executives. In fact, reported the NYT, some of these employees slated for life-changing payouts are hourly, blue-collar workers who were employed at the launch sites. Jessica Karl of Bloomberg got the joke: “SpaceX cafeteria has a ton of new millionaires going around.”

SpaceX cafeteria workers poised to become millionaires after blockbuster IPO — 4,400 employees set to hit 7-figures

The View From the Top

Senior leadership will also benefit hugely. The Financial Times reports that both Chief Operating Officer Gwynne Shotwell and Chief Financial Officer Bret Johnsen have stakes valued at over $1 billion.

Board member Antonio Gracias, founder of Valor Equity Partners, holds stock that could be worth about $65 billion, and fellow director Luke Nosek's stake is worth about $5 billion.

The listing may be a big step for Musk as well. His net worth is now $788.8 billion where they are speculating that he may become the first trillionaire in the world. 

Not Just Elon: SpaceX IPO Set to Create 4,400 Employee Millionaires

A Word of Caution

Not all analysts believe the valuation is warranted. Morningstar has priced SpaceX at more than 50 percent lower than the IPO price, at $63 a share. 

In two of the three scenarios, the equity analyst Nicolas Owens gave SpaceX the benefit of the doubt, assuming the company can make the Starship rocket rapidly reusable, and commercialise space-based data centres long term, but that would not happen until at least 2028.

Why It Matters

Musk has been a critic of public markets plenty, but the fact that SpaceX's more than 14,000 employees were paid with equity and that they were banned from trading shares internally had been putting pressure on Musk to provide more widespread liquidity, said Minmo Gahng, a finance professor at Cornell. 

The IPO, in the sense, addresses a long term balance between private control and employee reward, cornell.

The listing is more than just a market move for people such as Trevor Hise; it is the culmination of several years of placing their money on a company that was not seriously considered by many in the beginning. 

If the high valuation is correct or not is a significant issue for one of the world's most closely followed companies, on June 12.

Trevor Hise came into the world to be a scientist and engineer working for SpaceX, but his parents had hoped that he would have a more stable, more traditional career. Rather he chose a new rocket company which was, at the time, no household name. 

That bet seems to be proving to be a lucrative one over 10 years, as SpaceX is ready to go public on June 12, in what is said to be the largest IPO in history. 

SpaceX cafeteria workers poised to become millionaires after blockbuster IPO — 4,400 employees set to hit 7-figures

The IPO is expected to generate $75 billion, with 555.6 million shares priced at $135 each, making the valuation of the company about $1.75 trillion. The offering is reportedly oversubscribed by almost 3.5 to 4 times as demand has reached $250 billion. SpaceX will make its debut on the Nasdaq under the symbol SPCX.

Meet the SpaceX employees who are set to become multimillionaires thanks to its IPO: from execs to even welders

The event became a turning point in the workforce for company founder Tom Mueller, who was the first person to join the company. Elon Musk, he said, "always talked about the importance of equity over pay for long-term employees" and that is happening now. 

SpaceX IPO: Largest in History Set for NASDAQ Debut 

The lives of thousands of New Millionaires will be turned upside down

Over 4,400 employees, present and former, of SpaceX are projected to see their net worth multiply by a million once the listing is complete. Of these, about 400 of them could have stakes of $100 million or more. The study, done by the San Francisco investment platform Hill.com, was reported for the first time by The New York Times. 

Most of all, this wealth is not limited to the top executives. In fact, reported the NYT, some of these employees slated for life-changing payouts are hourly, blue-collar workers who were employed at the launch sites. Jessica Karl of Bloomberg got the joke: “SpaceX cafeteria has a ton of new millionaires going around.”

Senior leadership will also benefit hugely. The Financial Times reports that both Chief Operating Officer Gwynne Shotwell and Chief Financial Officer Bret Johnsen have stakes valued at over $1 billion.

Board member Antonio Gracias, founder of Valor Equity Partners, holds stock that could be worth about $65 billion, and fellow director Luke Nosek's stake is worth about $5 billion.

The listing may be a big step for Musk as well. His net worth is now $788.8 billion where they are speculating that he may become the first trillionaire in the world. 

Not Just Elon: SpaceX IPO Set to Create 4,400 Employee Millionaires

Not all analysts believe the valuation is warranted. Morningstar has priced SpaceX at more than 50 percent lower than the IPO price, at $63 a share. 

In two of the three scenarios, the equity analyst Nicolas Owens gave SpaceX the benefit of the doubt, assuming the company can make the Starship rocket rapidly reusable, and commercialise space-based data centres long term, but that would not happen until at least 2028.

Musk has been a critic of public markets plenty, but the fact that SpaceX's more than 14,000 employees were paid with equity and that they were banned from trading shares internally had been putting pressure on Musk to provide more widespread liquidity, said Minmo Gahng, a finance professor at Cornell. 

The IPO, in the sense, addresses a long term balance between private control and employee reward, cornell.

The listing is more than just a market move for people such as Trevor Hise; it is the culmination of several years of placing their money on a company that was not seriously considered by many in the beginning. 

If the high valuation is correct or not is a significant issue for one of the world's most closely followed companies, on June 12.

SpaceX IPO Set to Mint 4,400 Employee Millionaires

One of the biggest IPOs in the world has been driven by individual investors.

In the weeks leading up to SpaceX's debut on the stock market, retail and individual investors have swarmed bankers with orders totaling more than $70 billion, according to a Bloomberg report that was cited on Thursday. 

The individual investors would be expected to have at least 20 percent of the shares offered to them for this offering. 

SpaceX IPO: Wall Street Titan BlackRock Reportedly Orders Massive $5B Stake

Participation from retail investors has played a key role in the listing's structure, as SpaceX had previously been reported to potentially sell up to 30 per cent of the offering to retail investors.

A Historic Valuation

SpaceX announced a $135 price tag on its IPO stock each of the 555.6 million Class A shares, valuing the company at approximately $1.77 trillion and raising approximately $75 billion. 

The shares were anticipated to open for trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market and Nasdaq Texas under the ticker symbol "SPCX. 

Elon Musk’s net worth poised to sail past $1 trillion in SpaceX IPO

Despite earning much less in revenue than either company, at this valuation, SpaceX is one of the most valuable companies listed in the United States of America, behind only Tesla and Meta. 

The total demand surpasses $250 billion

The total demand for the offering came in at about $250 billion, which was almost four times oversubscribed. Larger orders have been placed by institutional players, such as anchor orders from the large investors that valued at approximately $10 billion each, and a $5 billion order from BlackRock. 

Access for Smaller Investors

To meet the retail demand, Fidelity reduced its $100,000 requirement for IPO access to just $2,000, while Charles Schwab kept the same requirement of $100,000. Smaller investors have access to Robinhood, SoFi and E*Trade, which have no stated minimum. 

BlackRock ordered $5 billion in SpaceX shares as IPO demand hit $250 billion, nearly 4x oversubscribed

Caution Amid the Enthusiasm

But some observers aren't as optimistic as others. Morningstar has estimated the stock could be worth about half the $135 price it was offered at and Senator Elizabeth Warren sent a letter to the SEC requesting a delay, citing two reasons: the size of the offering alone "should warrant careful SEC review," and she has governance concerns with the company. 

Why It Matters

It is not usual practice for an IPO to this extent to provide for retail participation, as the majority of the allocations are normally made to institutional investors. In several ways, Musk has been rewriting the IPO playbook; for starters, he has been focused on securing retail allocations, which is usually the last thing that's of interest to founders.

For example, Musk has been talking about the need to focus on retail allocations — something rarely seen on the IPO radar — as well as quickly getting the stock listed on indexes and structuring the governance to allow him to maintain founder control. 

The dynamics between the institutional giants and a surge of individual investors will be closely scrutinized as the first sign of how future mega-listings may be designed. 

One of the biggest IPOs in the world has been driven by individual investors.

In the weeks leading up to SpaceX's debut on the stock market, retail and individual investors have swarmed bankers with orders totaling more than $70 billion, according to a Bloomberg report that was cited on Thursday. 

The individual investors would be expected to have at least 20 percent of the shares offered to them for this offering. 

SpaceX IPO: Wall Street Titan BlackRock Reportedly Orders Massive $5B Stake

Participation from retail investors has played a key role in the listing's structure, as SpaceX had previously been reported to potentially sell up to 30 per cent of the offering to retail investors.

SpaceX announced a $135 price tag on its IPO stock each of the 555.6 million Class A shares, valuing the company at approximately $1.77 trillion and raising approximately $75 billion. 

The shares were anticipated to open for trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market and Nasdaq Texas under the ticker symbol "SPCX. 

Elon Musk’s net worth poised to sail past $1 trillion in SpaceX IPO

Despite earning much less in revenue than either company, at this valuation, SpaceX is one of the most valuable companies listed in the United States of America, behind only Tesla and Meta. 

The total demand for the offering came in at about $250 billion, which was almost four times oversubscribed. Larger orders have been placed by institutional players, such as anchor orders from the large investors that valued at approximately $10 billion each, and a $5 billion order from BlackRock. 

To meet the retail demand, Fidelity reduced its $100,000 requirement for IPO access to just $2,000, while Charles Schwab kept the same requirement of $100,000. Smaller investors have access to Robinhood, SoFi and E*Trade, which have no stated minimum. 

BlackRock ordered $5 billion in SpaceX shares as IPO demand hit $250 billion, nearly 4x oversubscribed

But some observers aren't as optimistic as others. Morningstar has estimated the stock could be worth about half the $135 price it was offered at and Senator Elizabeth Warren sent a letter to the SEC requesting a delay, citing two reasons: the size of the offering alone "should warrant careful SEC review," and she has governance concerns with the company. 

It is not usual practice for an IPO to this extent to provide for retail participation, as the majority of the allocations are normally made to institutional investors. In several ways, Musk has been rewriting the IPO playbook; for starters, he has been focused on securing retail allocations, which is usually the last thing that's of interest to founders.

For example, Musk has been talking about the need to focus on retail allocations — something rarely seen on the IPO radar — as well as quickly getting the stock listed on indexes and structuring the governance to allow him to maintain founder control. 

The dynamics between the institutional giants and a surge of individual investors will be closely scrutinized as the first sign of how future mega-listings may be designed. 

Retail Investors Pour $70Bn Into SpaceX IPO

Synopsis

The use of the word ‘do kaudi ke' to describe teachers on YouTube has sparked a wide debate among the masses after they were used by Aaj Tak Managing Editor Anjana Om Kashyap during a live discussion on May 29 – 30, 2026. Many prominent online teachers vehemently reacted against the show, Khan Sir, Abhinay Sharma among them, saying that it was “godi media.” As of June 3, there is no apology or explanation.

A Letter that travelled faster than the broadcast

It was the exact moment when Priya Yadav from Muzaffarpur saw the clip while she was a second year aspirant for SSC Combined Graduate Level examination, who was preparing for her second attempt of the same examination. 

She said that she was watching a rebuttal video by Abhinay Sir at 11pm at night. He was cool, but I knew he was really hurt, these are the people that taught me everything I know, calling them worthless was personal. 

Her response was one among millions of the repones which flooded social media platforms within 24 hours of the original airing of Aaj Tak.

Anjana Om Kashyap, Managing Editor and prime time anchor of Aaj Tak, a Hindi television network which is one of the most-watched news channels in India is the central figure in the controversy. 

While the public fuming over the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak has been heating up on the evening of May 29-30, 2026, Kashyap turned her wrath towards India's exploding community of YouTube based teachers.

What Was Said: The Remarks in Context

Kashyap said in the broadcast that popular YouTube ‘star teachers’ are ‘explainers' building up their platforms as businesses. She said that many of them were lacking in "academic sophistication" but captivating millions of students with "attractive thumbnails, sensational language and misleading claims. 

She called the teachers "do kaudi ke" (roughly meaning "not worth two pennies") and described the teachers as "sketching on blackboards not to teach but to 'grab views' and 'do drama' and get money from students.

Kashyap also said that the emergence of such teachers has led to a shift of focus from content learning to coaching culture. 

The items were said with a high degree of assertiveness and the video was edited, posted, distributed and viewed by many, many people within hours of the programme's conclusion.

"These teachers lack depth in the subject matter or adequate academic qualifications, yet they are reaching millions of students through attractive thumbnails, sensational language, and misleading claims."  — Anjana Om Kashyap, Managing Editor, Aaj Tak — as reported

Teachers react: Godi Media Chants and Sharp Rebuttals

The reactions to the online education community were prompt and more synchronized in the Indian social media landscape than is typical. Abhinay Sharma, the founder of the popular Abhinay Maths channel, directly challenged the characterisation of Kashyap, emphasizing the significance of the role of YouTube educators for aspirants from smaller towns and rural areas to prepare for competitive exams like JEE, NEET, SSC, Railways, and UPSC.

In a casual phrase used in public discourse in India, Sharma and other teachers accused mainstream television journalists of engaging in 'godi journalism' — which refers to 'party journalism' or 'establishment journalism' — and wondered why the media was holding scrutiny on YouTube teachers, when the entire NEET paper leak — a systemic failure in the administration of government examinations — wasn't being discussed.

"For students in smaller towns and rural areas, online education often serves as the only affordable and accessible option for quality learning."  — Abhinay Sharma (Abhinay Sir), Founder, Abhinay Maths Channel

Faisal Khan — Khan Sir — added his voice pointedly. In a statement that was itself viral, he said that no one who was, simple, accessible to millions of rural or middle class students" should be described in disparaging terms. 

In response, Suman Mam, teaching at ‘Ocean Gurukul’ said that many online teachers were providing education for free to those students, who were unable to join any coaching institutes, thus directly negating Kashyap's claims.

Students mobilise; Personal Testimonials flood social media

This dispute was different from the norm in the social media world in that the responses were not merely social media, but were of substance. Students, many from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Jharkhand.

where offline education is structurally not available, described the student in detail, with great specificity, of how he/she enabled a student to crack an exam, to understand a concept, or to continue studying despite financial difficulties.

It's said that within a single day, hundreds of comments and reactions to the video were posted, and millions of them were collected for public view, in contrast to anonymous trolling that public figures are able to shrug off, these were first-person anecdotes with real educational outcomes.

The NEET-UG 2026 paper leak, which triggered student protests in several states, set the tone for the reaction.

The Broader Debate: TV Credibility and the Education Economy

The issue is playing out at a time of significant tension between traditional TV news and the new digital TV content landscape. 

The ministry of information and broadcasting ordered the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) in March, 2026, to stop publishing the TRP data of TV news ratings, alleging “unwarranted sensationalism” in the ratings. This was later extended to a suspension.

In the past few years, online education market in India has grown significantly. One of the biggest education brands to emerge from YouTube, PhysicsWallah made its public markets debut in 2025 with a valuation of around 5.2 billion US dollars, which Reuters pegged at fifty percent year-on-year revenue growth. 

Kashyap's remarks allude to the size of the industry that had become public and owned by teachers.

Material is context for NEET-UG 2026. Several YouTube teachers had been some of the strongest critics of the errors in the administration of examinations and addressed students who trust them. People have been criticising Kashyap's remarks without official confirmation that this was not coincidental to that trend of institutional critique.

No Apology Issued, Silence from Aaj Tak

There was no public apology or clarification issued by Aaj Tak channel or Anjana Om Kashyap as of June 3, 2026, regarding the original broadcast comments. 

The silence has been interpreted as either a sign of normal broadcast practice of letting controversy simmer and boil without official involvement, or as a sign that in this kind of controversy, so much personal and voluminous is at stake that the time of silence may be inappropriate.

Testimonial videos by teachers remain posted on YouTube and student posts on testimonials remain current as of the time of this writing. The hashtag that tracks the controversy keeps popping up in-between.

"As of May 31, 2026, neither Anjana Om Kashyap nor the channel that aired the debate has issued any public apology or clarification."  — Hindustan Herald, investigative report on the controversy

A Question That Outlasts the Clip

At the core of this dispute is a question that neither side has fully answered: what standards of accountability, if any, govern a media space — whether broadcast television or YouTube — that reaches millions of viewers who have nowhere else to turn for news or education? 

India's regulatory frameworks for digital content remain works in progress. The debate that Anjana Om Kashyap ignited has — perhaps inadvertently — made that gap more visible than it has been in some time.

The use of the word ‘do kaudi ke' to describe teachers on YouTube has sparked a wide debate among the masses after they were used by Aaj Tak Managing Editor Anjana Om Kashyap during a live discussion on May 29 – 30, 2026. Many prominent online teachers vehemently reacted against the show, Khan Sir, Abhinay Sharma among them, saying that it was “godi media.” As of June 3, there is no apology or explanation.

A Letter that travelled faster than the broadcast

It was the exact moment when Priya Yadav from Muzaffarpur saw the clip while she was a second year aspirant for SSC Combined Graduate Level examination, who was preparing for her second attempt of the same examination. 

She said that she was watching a rebuttal video by Abhinay Sir at 11pm at night. He was cool, but I knew he was really hurt, these are the people that taught me everything I know, calling them worthless was personal. 

Her response was one among millions of the repones which flooded social media platforms within 24 hours of the original airing of Aaj Tak.

Anjana Om Kashyap, Managing Editor and prime time anchor of Aaj Tak, a Hindi television network which is one of the most-watched news channels in India is the central figure in the controversy. 

While the public fuming over the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak has been heating up on the evening of May 29-30, 2026, Kashyap turned her wrath towards India's exploding community of YouTube based teachers.

Kashyap said in the broadcast that popular YouTube ‘star teachers’ are ‘explainers' building up their platforms as businesses. She said that many of them were lacking in "academic sophistication" but captivating millions of students with "attractive thumbnails, sensational language and misleading claims. 

She called the teachers "do kaudi ke" (roughly meaning "not worth two pennies") and described the teachers as "sketching on blackboards not to teach but to 'grab views' and 'do drama' and get money from students.

Kashyap also said that the emergence of such teachers has led to a shift of focus from content learning to coaching culture. 

The items were said with a high degree of assertiveness and the video was edited, posted, distributed and viewed by many, many people within hours of the programme's conclusion.

"These teachers lack depth in the subject matter or adequate academic qualifications, yet they are reaching millions of students through attractive thumbnails, sensational language, and misleading claims."  — Anjana Om Kashyap, Managing Editor, Aaj Tak — as reported

Teachers react: Godi Media Chants and Sharp Rebuttals

The reactions to the online education community were prompt and more synchronized in the Indian social media landscape than is typical. Abhinay Sharma, the founder of the popular Abhinay Maths channel, directly challenged the characterisation of Kashyap, emphasizing the significance of the role of YouTube educators for aspirants from smaller towns and rural areas to prepare for competitive exams like JEE, NEET, SSC, Railways, and UPSC.

In a casual phrase used in public discourse in India, Sharma and other teachers accused mainstream television journalists of engaging in 'godi journalism' — which refers to 'party journalism' or 'establishment journalism' — and wondered why the media was holding scrutiny on YouTube teachers, when the entire NEET paper leak — a systemic failure in the administration of government examinations — wasn't being discussed.

"For students in smaller towns and rural areas, online education often serves as the only affordable and accessible option for quality learning."  — Abhinay Sharma (Abhinay Sir), Founder, Abhinay Maths Channel

Faisal Khan — Khan Sir — added his voice pointedly. In a statement that was itself viral, he said that no one who was, simple, accessible to millions of rural or middle class students" should be described in disparaging terms. 

In response, Suman Mam, teaching at ‘Ocean Gurukul’ said that many online teachers were providing education for free to those students, who were unable to join any coaching institutes, thus directly negating Kashyap's claims.

Students mobilise; Personal Testimonials flood social media

This dispute was different from the norm in the social media world in that the responses were not merely social media, but were of substance. Students, many from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Jharkhand.

where offline education is structurally not available, described the student in detail, with great specificity, of how he/she enabled a student to crack an exam, to understand a concept, or to continue studying despite financial difficulties.

It's said that within a single day, hundreds of comments and reactions to the video were posted, and millions of them were collected for public view, in contrast to anonymous trolling that public figures are able to shrug off, these were first-person anecdotes with real educational outcomes.

The NEET-UG 2026 paper leak, which triggered student protests in several states, set the tone for the reaction.

The Broader Debate: TV Credibility and the Education Economy

The issue is playing out at a time of significant tension between traditional TV news and the new digital TV content landscape. 

The ministry of information and broadcasting ordered the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) in March, 2026, to stop publishing the TRP data of TV news ratings, alleging “unwarranted sensationalism” in the ratings. This was later extended to a suspension.

In the past few years, online education market in India has grown significantly. One of the biggest education brands to emerge from YouTube, PhysicsWallah made its public markets debut in 2025 with a valuation of around 5.2 billion US dollars, which Reuters pegged at fifty percent year-on-year revenue growth. 

Kashyap's remarks allude to the size of the industry that had become public and owned by teachers.

Material is context for NEET-UG 2026. Several YouTube teachers had been some of the strongest critics of the errors in the administration of examinations and addressed students who trust them. People have been criticising Kashyap's remarks without official confirmation that this was not coincidental to that trend of institutional critique.

There was no public apology or clarification issued by Aaj Tak channel or Anjana Om Kashyap as of June 3, 2026, regarding the original broadcast comments. 

The silence has been interpreted as either a sign of normal broadcast practice of letting controversy simmer and boil without official involvement, or as a sign that in this kind of controversy, so much personal and voluminous is at stake that the time of silence may be inappropriate.

Testimonial videos by teachers remain posted on YouTube and student posts on testimonials remain current as of the time of this writing. The hashtag that tracks the controversy keeps popping up in-between.

"As of May 31, 2026, neither Anjana Om Kashyap nor the channel that aired the debate has issued any public apology or clarification."  — Hindustan Herald, investigative report on the controversy

At the core of this dispute is a question that neither side has fully answered: what standards of accountability, if any, govern a media space — whether broadcast television or YouTube — that reaches millions of viewers who have nowhere else to turn for news or education? 

India's regulatory frameworks for digital content remain works in progress. The debate that Anjana Om Kashyap ignited has — perhaps inadvertently — made that gap more visible than it has been in some time.

Anchor's 'Do Kaudi Ke' Jibe Sets Off a Storm

Synopsis

On 16th May 2026, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court imposed a six-month simple prison sentence on advocate and YouTuber Gulshan Pahu and fined him ₹2000 for criminal contempt of court, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. But his crime was taanashahi (dictatorship) and manmarzi (arbitrary) in the Indian judiciary. This article looks critically at the verdict, the structural dilemmas of the contempt proceedings and what is disclosed by the case about the role of the judiciary in relation to public accountability.

The Verdict: Six Months for Speaking Truth to Power

The chilling message from the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja, to the already weak Indian civil society, on May 16, 2026, was that "criticism of the judiciary is an offence and could result in jail time.

So, it goes to the credit of a Delhi High Court, presided by Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja, that the court, on May 16, 2026, delivered the following verdict: Criticism of judiciary is an offence and could lead to jail time. 

Under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Gulshan Pahuja, an advocate and YouTuber, was slapped with six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000 for criminal contempt.

Bar and Bench, 'YouTuber who called judiciary taanashahi, manmarzi sentenced to 6 months jail by Delhi High Court,' 20 May 2026.

His alleged crime? The judicial system of the Indian State is a dictatorship — taanashahi. It had been an arbitrary and whimsical way of doing things, which they termed manmarzi. Simply and publicly stating his expectation for no justice from it. Both are awkward and unavoidable questions for India to ask: Was he wrong?

The Anatomy of the Case: Judges as Complainants

The contempt proceedings stemmed from a series of videos Pahuja posted on his YouTube channel, Fight 4 Judicial Reforms, which by its very name was dedicated to the cause of judicial reforms. In those videos, he met judges' advocates Shiv Narayan Sharma and Deepak Singh, who allegedly spoke ill of the behaviour of certain judicial officers.

Free Press Journal, 'Delhi High Court Sentences YouTuber Gulshan Pahuja to 6 Months Jail in Contempt Case,' 20 May 2026

There is an egregious point to note here: In this case of impartiality, the complainants were judges. A system that puts itself in the center of the criticism does not act in a just manner, but in a self-preserving manner. The structural conflict of interest in this proceeding was addressed by the court at the heart of the issue, with a complete blank check.

Pahuja asked for a recall of the April 21 conviction order in his sentencing hearing, saying the proceedings were marred by procedural irregularities — he had not been "fully heard", the judges in the case were not summoned and had not been produced at the hearing for cross-examination, and articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution had been violated.

"Three district judges — Charu Asiwal, Ajay Narwal, and Ajay Singh Parihar — filed complaints after Pahuja uploaded videos and banners naming them in October 2024, with Pahuja allegedly implying that litigants should expect no justice if their cases were listed before these officers."

"The Court, however, refused to revisit the conviction order, observing that it could not sit in review of its earlier judgment and that the contemnor was free to challenge the same in accordance with law."

ANI News, 'Delhi HC awards 6-month jail term to YouTuber over remarks calling judiciary Taanashahi,' 20 May 2026

Therefore this institution that found him guilty decided that his conviction was correct. It's hard to imagine what due process even means in a court where everybody is the complainant, the judge, and the last word.

A Punishment Designed to Intimidate means Maximum Sentence

The court had given the maximum sentence of six months, clearly saying that it would have made Pahuja bolder. Maximum. For words. For a video in YouTube.

"The court noted that Pahuja had drawn comparisons between the judiciary and a dictatorship, stating in his arguments that adaalaton ki manmarzi badhti jaa rahi hai aur main koi nyay ki umeed nahi kar raha — that the arbitrary actions of courts are increasing and he expects no justice — and that manmarzi ka dusra arth taanashahi hota hai — the synonym for arbitrariness is dictatorship."

These are not threats. These are no lies. Those are the voiced frustrations of a citizen and lawyer who has been at the heart of America's system and has come to understand its shortcomings. A state that sentences to jail people who want to be released from falsehoods, lies, and dishonesty, seeking only to be set free by their creator, is an institution that has renounced its moral responsibility.

So the irony is quite obvious: a man jailed for describing the judiciary as a dictatorship has, through his confinement, made a pretty good case for himself.

The Contempt Law: An Anachronism in a Democracy

The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 is a remnant of the colonial past, and a law that was meant to protect judicial power rather than provide fair trials. In a working democracy, the press, the citizen and the public critic should have the liberty of criticizing institutions, even courts.

As is often said, the Supreme Court of India has, on several occasions, recognised that the people's trust in the judiciary can be won by its conduct, not sustained by a threat of prosecution. However, the Pahuja verdict is a complete violation of this principle in the most glaring of ways.

The Delhi HC's order highlighted that "criticism of the judicial system is acceptable but any "scandalising" "without repentance" of the judiciary system can be met with the "maximum sanction" available under the law.

"The Delhi HC's judgment underscored that while criticism of the judicial system is permissible, crossing into what it termed scandalising conduct without remorse invites the severest sanction the law allows."

Supreme Today AI, 'Criminal Contempt: No Remorse or Course Correction Warrants Maximum Six-Month Imprisonment,' 19 May 2026

However, who is to decide 'scandalising'? The court itself. It is up to the body being criticized to determine whether the criticism has "crossed the line. This is not a matter of law; it's a matter of judges alone.

Pahuja's Appeal and Supreme Court journey

As Pahuja had indicated his willingness to move the Supreme Court against the High Court's judgment, the court granted him a stay of the punishment for 60 days under Section 19(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act. This is not magnanimity, it's just doing what is right.

Free Press Journal, ibid.

The Supreme Court now has an historic role to play. It will have to determine if the Contempt of Courts Act, used as a weapon in this instance, passes constitutional muster under Article 19(1)(a) – the right to free speech. More generally, it should examine whether such a piece of legislation, which is intended to allow judges to punish those who abuse them, belongs in a democratic republic.

Pahuja, interestingly, is still claiming that there is a constitutional irregularity in the proceedings: that he was deprived of the “natural justice” of which every accused is entitled to. These arguments should be considered, taken and put to a panel of people free from institutional self-interest, without prejudice and seriously.

A review of the importance of accountability and its applicability to a team sport

Conclusion: Accountability Has No Exemptions
Gulshan Pahuja could have been out of his league. He may have been strident. He might not have had the “politeness” that courts require. The remedy in a democracy for fake speech is, however, not silence maintained by imprisonment. The solution is transparency, accountability and the ability to be challenged.

Indian courts are not immune to the eye of the law. It can't be faulted.
When the institution is a dictatorship and it catches and imprisons, in or out, the one who condemned it, it has, with terrible inadvertence, illustrated its own point.

The Contempt of Courts Act need to be looked into again. Self-initiated contempt must be counteracted on structural grounds. The question Gulshan Pahuja dared to ask, ‘who watches the watchmen'? cannot be let go in a prison cell.

On 16th May 2026, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court imposed a six-month simple prison sentence on advocate and YouTuber Gulshan Pahu and fined him ₹2000 for criminal contempt of court, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. But his crime was taanashahi (dictatorship) and manmarzi (arbitrary) in the Indian judiciary. This article looks critically at the verdict, the structural dilemmas of the contempt proceedings and what is disclosed by the case about the role of the judiciary in relation to public accountability.

The Verdict: Six Months for Speaking Truth to Power

The chilling message from the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja, to the already weak Indian civil society, on May 16, 2026, was that "criticism of the judiciary is an offence and could result in jail time.

So, it goes to the credit of a Delhi High Court, presided by Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja, that the court, on May 16, 2026, delivered the following verdict: Criticism of judiciary is an offence and could lead to jail time. 

Under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Gulshan Pahuja, an advocate and YouTuber, was slapped with six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000 for criminal contempt.

Bar and Bench, 'YouTuber who called judiciary taanashahi, manmarzi sentenced to 6 months jail by Delhi High Court,' 20 May 2026.

His alleged crime? The judicial system of the Indian State is a dictatorship — taanashahi. It had been an arbitrary and whimsical way of doing things, which they termed manmarzi. Simply and publicly stating his expectation for no justice from it. Both are awkward and unavoidable questions for India to ask: Was he wrong?

The Anatomy of the Case: Judges as Complainants

The contempt proceedings stemmed from a series of videos Pahuja posted on his YouTube channel, Fight 4 Judicial Reforms, which by its very name was dedicated to the cause of judicial reforms. In those videos, he met judges' advocates Shiv Narayan Sharma and Deepak Singh, who allegedly spoke ill of the behaviour of certain judicial officers.

Free Press Journal, 'Delhi High Court Sentences YouTuber Gulshan Pahuja to 6 Months Jail in Contempt Case,' 20 May 2026

There is an egregious point to note here: In this case of impartiality, the complainants were judges. A system that puts itself in the center of the criticism does not act in a just manner, but in a self-preserving manner. The structural conflict of interest in this proceeding was addressed by the court at the heart of the issue, with a complete blank check.

Pahuja asked for a recall of the April 21 conviction order in his sentencing hearing, saying the proceedings were marred by procedural irregularities — he had not been "fully heard", the judges in the case were not summoned and had not been produced at the hearing for cross-examination, and articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution had been violated.

"Three district judges — Charu Asiwal, Ajay Narwal, and Ajay Singh Parihar — filed complaints after Pahuja uploaded videos and banners naming them in October 2024, with Pahuja allegedly implying that litigants should expect no justice if their cases were listed before these officers."

"The Court, however, refused to revisit the conviction order, observing that it could not sit in review of its earlier judgment and that the contemnor was free to challenge the same in accordance with law."

ANI News, 'Delhi HC awards 6-month jail term to YouTuber over remarks calling judiciary Taanashahi,' 20 May 2026

Therefore this institution that found him guilty decided that his conviction was correct. It's hard to imagine what due process even means in a court where everybody is the complainant, the judge, and the last word.

A Punishment Designed to Intimidate means Maximum Sentence

The court had given the maximum sentence of six months, clearly saying that it would have made Pahuja bolder. Maximum. For words. For a video in YouTube.

"The court noted that Pahuja had drawn comparisons between the judiciary and a dictatorship, stating in his arguments that adaalaton ki manmarzi badhti jaa rahi hai aur main koi nyay ki umeed nahi kar raha — that the arbitrary actions of courts are increasing and he expects no justice — and that manmarzi ka dusra arth taanashahi hota hai — the synonym for arbitrariness is dictatorship."

These are not threats. These are no lies. Those are the voiced frustrations of a citizen and lawyer who has been at the heart of America's system and has come to understand its shortcomings. A state that sentences to jail people who want to be released from falsehoods, lies, and dishonesty, seeking only to be set free by their creator, is an institution that has renounced its moral responsibility.

So the irony is quite obvious: a man jailed for describing the judiciary as a dictatorship has, through his confinement, made a pretty good case for himself.

The Contempt Law: An Anachronism in a Democracy

The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 is a remnant of the colonial past, and a law that was meant to protect judicial power rather than provide fair trials. In a working democracy, the press, the citizen and the public critic should have the liberty of criticizing institutions, even courts.

As is often said, the Supreme Court of India has, on several occasions, recognised that the people's trust in the judiciary can be won by its conduct, not sustained by a threat of prosecution. However, the Pahuja verdict is a complete violation of this principle in the most glaring of ways.

The Delhi HC's order highlighted that "criticism of the judicial system is acceptable but any "scandalising" "without repentance" of the judiciary system can be met with the "maximum sanction" available under the law.

"The Delhi HC's judgment underscored that while criticism of the judicial system is permissible, crossing into what it termed scandalising conduct without remorse invites the severest sanction the law allows."

Supreme Today AI, 'Criminal Contempt: No Remorse or Course Correction Warrants Maximum Six-Month Imprisonment,' 19 May 2026

However, who is to decide 'scandalising'? The court itself. It is up to the body being criticized to determine whether the criticism has "crossed the line. This is not a matter of law; it's a matter of judges alone.

Pahuja's Appeal and Supreme Court journey

As Pahuja had indicated his willingness to move the Supreme Court against the High Court's judgment, the court granted him a stay of the punishment for 60 days under Section 19(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act. This is not magnanimity, it's just doing what is right.

The Supreme Court now has an historic role to play. It will have to determine if the Contempt of Courts Act, used as a weapon in this instance, passes constitutional muster under Article 19(1)(a) – the right to free speech. More generally, it should examine whether such a piece of legislation, which is intended to allow judges to punish those who abuse them, belongs in a democratic republic.

Pahuja, interestingly, is still claiming that there is a constitutional irregularity in the proceedings: that he was deprived of the “natural justice” of which every accused is entitled to. These arguments should be considered, taken and put to a panel of people free from institutional self-interest, without prejudice and seriously.

A review of the importance of accountability and its applicability to a team sport

Conclusion: Accountability Has No Exemptions
Gulshan Pahuja could have been out of his league. He may have been strident. He might not have had the “politeness” that courts require. The remedy in a democracy for fake speech is, however, not silence maintained by imprisonment. The solution is transparency, accountability and the ability to be challenged.

Indian courts are not immune to the eye of the law. It can't be faulted.
When the institution is a dictatorship and it catches and imprisons, in or out, the one who condemned it, it has, with terrible inadvertence, illustrated its own point.

The Contempt of Courts Act need to be looked into again. Self-initiated contempt must be counteracted on structural grounds. The question Gulshan Pahuja dared to ask, ‘who watches the watchmen'? cannot be let go in a prison cell.

Kavye Singhal

Articles by Kavye Singhal