Delhi High Court: In criminal contempt proceedings arising out of objectionable videos uploaded on the YouTube channel “Fight 4 Judicial Reforms”, a Division Bench of Navin Chawla* and Ravinder Dudeja, JJ., sentenced contemnor Gulshan Pahuja to 6 months’ simple imprisonment along with fine after finding him guilty of scandalising the judiciary and lowering the authority of the courts through derogatory and malicious remarks against judicial officers and the judicial system.
The Court reiterated that while fair criticism of the judiciary and debate on reforms, including audio-video recording of court proceedings, are permissible and protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, sweeping and unverified allegations imputing lack of integrity and fairness to judicial officers’ amount to criminal contempt. The Court observed that criticism intended to improve the system must be distinguished from attacks designed to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. Noting that the contemnor showed no remorse and continued to justify and compound his contempt even during sentencing proceedings, the Court held that failure to impose adequate punishment would embolden repetition of such acts. Accordingly, the Court imposed the maximum sentence under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, while suspending the sentence for 60 days under Section 19(3) of the Act to enable the contemnor to avail his appellate remedy before the Supreme Court.
Background
The present contempt proceedings arose from 2 references dated 15 January 2025 and 10 March 2025 made respectively by 2 judicial officers concerning objectionable videos and banners uploaded by Respondent 2-Gulshan Pahuja, on his YouTube channel “Fight 4 Judicial Reforms”. The references pertained to videos dated 29 October 2024 and 5 January 2025 in Contempt Case (Crl.) No. 3 of 2025, and videos dated 3 March 2025 and 7 March 2025 in Contempt Case (Crl.) No. 4 of 2025. The videos allegedly contained scandalous, derogatory and contentious remarks against judicial officers and the judicial institution, thereby prompting initiation of criminal contempt proceedings.
In Contempt Case (Crl.) No. 3 of 2025, the first video uploaded on 29 October 2024 featured an interview conducted by Respondent 2 with Respondent 1. The interview was ostensibly aimed at advocating audio-video recording of court proceedings and referred to 2 matters allegedly dealt with the 2 judicial officers. During the interview, Respondent 1 narrated his alleged experiences before the said courts and made objectionable remarks against the judicial officers concerned and the judiciary as a whole. Subsequently, on 5 January 2025, Respondent 2 uploaded another video on the same YouTube channel containing a fresh introduction alleging corruption and non-functioning of certain Judges, followed by the earlier interview of Respondent 1.
During the pendency of the proceedings, Respondent 1, filed a reply dated 19 August 2025 tendering an unconditional and unqualified apology for the remarks made in the videos. He also appeared before the Court in person, reiterated his apology and undertook not to make such scandalous or derogatory remarks against judicial officers or the judicial institution in future. Finding the apology genuine, the Court accepted the same and discharged him from the contempt proceedings. However, Respondent 2 continued to justify the publication of the videos and banners as being bona fide and in public interest, leading the Court to proceed further against him in both contempt cases.
The Court, while dealing with criminal contempt proceedings, reiterated that the object of contempt jurisdiction is not to protect Judges personally, but to preserve public confidence in the administration of justice. Referring to decisions such as Brahma Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P., (1953) 1 SCC 813; S. Mulgaokar, In re, (1978) 3 SCC 339 and Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media (P) Ltd., (2025) 10 SCC 353 the Court observed that fair and reasonable criticism of the judiciary is permissible and even necessary for strengthening the judicial system. The Court emphasised that Judges and courts are open to scrutiny and debate, particularly in the context of reforms such as audio-video recording of court proceedings and the “open court” concept. Mere criticism, venting of frustration by a disgruntled litigant, or comments made in bona fide public interest would not amount to criminal contempt.
However, the Court drew a distinction between fair criticism and malicious attacks intended to scandalise the judiciary. It held that Respondent 2 had crossed the permissible limits by personally targeting judicial officers and making sweeping allegations that litigants appearing before them should not expect justice, without any verification from judicial records or cogent material. The Court found that such statements were not made to promote healthy debate but were aimed at lowering the authority and dignity of the courts and undermining public confidence in the judicial system.
The Court further held that the derogatory remarks and YouTube content uploaded by Respondent 2 sought to mock and scandalise the judiciary as a whole and were therefore protected neither as fair criticism nor under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Concluding that the acts of Respondent 2 amounted to “criminal contempt” under Section 2(c), Contempt of Courts Act, the Court held him guilty and issued notice on the question of punishment under Section 12 of the Act, while accepting the apologies tendered by Respondent 1 and discharging them from the contempt proceedings.
Analysis
The Delhi High Court, while considering the question of sentence after holding Respondent 2- Gulshan Pahuja guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c), Contempt of Courts Act, , rejected his attempt to reopen the findings recorded in the judgment dated 21 April 2026. The contemnor had filed an application seeking recall of the judgment on grounds of alleged procedural irregularities, violation of Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution, and denial of opportunity to cross-examine the judicial officers concerned and other respondents. He further contended that the Court had failed to summon the trial court records and had not considered the documents filed by him. The Court, however, observed that such submissions were in the nature of seeking a review of the judgment and could not be entertained at the stage of sentencing, particularly when the contemnor had an independent remedy available in accordance with law.
The Court noted that even during the course of oral submissions on sentence, the contemnor continued to make scandalous remarks against the Indian judicial system and stated that he expected no justice from it. The Court found that he showed no remorse or course correction and, in fact, compounded the contempt by reiterating that his actions were justified and intended to “improve” the judicial system. The Court further took note of the submission of the Amicus Curiae that despite earlier directions restraining him from uploading further videos against judicial officers, the contemnor had brazenly continued to publish such content. Observing that failure to impose adequate punishment would embolden the contemnor to repeat such acts in future, the Court held that the case warranted imposition of maximum punishment.
Decision
Accordingly, the Court sentenced the contemnor to simple imprisonment for 6 months along with a fine of ₹ 2000 in each contempt case, with the sentences directed to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine, the Court imposed an additional sentence of 1 month’s simple imprisonment. However, considering the contemnor’s statement that he intended to challenge the judgment before the Supreme Court, the Court, in exercise of powers under Section 19(3), Contempt of Courts Act, suspended the sentence for a period of 60 days to enable him to avail his appellate remedy, directing that in the absence of any order from the Supreme Court, he shall surrender before the Registrar General of the High Court upon expiry of the said period.
Also Read: Contempt of Court | SCC Times
[Court on its own Motion v. Shiv Narayan Sharma, CONT.CAS. (CRL) 3 of 2025 & CRL.M.A. 2184 of 2026, decided on 16-5-2026]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Navin Chawla
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Harsh Prabhakar, (Amicus Curiae), Vivek Kumar Tandon, (DHCLSC), Dhruv Chaudhry, Sourav and Vijit Singh, Laxmi Gupta, Advocates
For the Respondents: Gulshan Pahuja, R-2 present in person, Aman Usman, APP with Manvendra Yadav, Advocate for the State
