.jpg)
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sentenced YouTuber and advocate Gulshan Pahuja to six months of simple imprisonment in two criminal contempt cases arising from objectionable remarks directed at the judiciary and court functioning.
The case stems from allegations that Pahuja made derogatory comments against judicial institutions, including a repeated assertion, even while appearing before the court, that he had “no expectation of justice” from the system. He also described the judiciary as functioning in a manner akin to “dictatorship,” stating that court rigidity amounted to authoritarian conduct and expressing complete lack of faith in receiving justice.
Pahuja operates the YouTube channel titled “Fight 4 Judicial Reforms.” The proceedings were initiated following complaints filed by three district judges, Charu Asiwal, Ajay Narwal, and Ajay Singh Parihar, who objected to videos and banners published on his channel in October 2024 that directly named them. He was further accused of personally targeting judicial officers and suggesting that litigants whose cases are listed before them should not expect fair adjudication.
In another video uploaded on 7 March 2025, Pahuja referred to the Supreme Court using the term “Capital C,” a remark that further intensified the contempt proceedings.
A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that the accused had demonstrated “no regret” and no indication of corrective conduct despite being held guilty of criminal contempt. The court noted that during oral submissions, he reiterated remarks questioning the credibility of the Indian judicial system and continued to express lack of faith in judicial fairness. The bench recorded that the contemnor “shows no regret” and failed to suggest any corrective action, further observing that he compounded the contempt by repeating scandalous statements before the court.
The court further held that the absence of adequate punishment could encourage repetition of such conduct and embolden similar actions in the future. Accordingly, it imposed the maximum punishment of six months’ simple imprisonment along with a fine of 2,000 rupees in each contempt case, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently.
However, noting Pahuja’s stated intention to challenge the judgment before the Supreme Court, the High Court suspended the sentence for 60 days under Section 19(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s strict stance on maintaining institutional dignity and ensuring that criticism does not cross into contempt that undermines public confidence in the justice delivery system.
About The Author
Comment List