The Delhi High Court sentenced YouTuber Gulshan Pahuja to six-month imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 for criminal contempt of court over derogatory remarks against the judiciary made in his videos and during court proceedings in a case “Court on its own motion vs Shiv Narayan Sharma Adv and Ors.”
The court observed that Pahuja compared the judiciary to a dictatorship while appearing before the Bench. He said he expected no justice from the Indian judicial system. He also stated that “adaalaton ki manmarzi badhti jaa rahi hai aur main koi nyay ki umeed nahi kar raha” (arbitrary actions of the courts are increasing and I am not expecting any justice). He also alleged that “manmarzi ka dusra arth tanashahi hota hai” (the synonym for arbitrariness is dictatorship).
In its May 16 order, a Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja awarded the maximum sentence of six-month imprisonment, observing that a lesser punishment could encourage similar conduct in the future.
“We also find that by not imposing adequate punishment on him, we may encourage him to repeat these acts in future and embolden him in doing the same,” the court said.
The court had earlier held Pahuja guilty of contempt and subsequently heard arguments on the question of sentence.
The proceedings stemmed from videos uploaded on Pahuja’s YouTube channel, “Fight 4 Judicial Reforms,” in which he interviewed advocates Shiv Narayan Sharma and Deepak Singh. During the interviews, derogatory remarks were allegedly made against judges and the judiciary.
The matter came to the High Court after three judicial officers flagged the videos and related banners, seeking initiation of contempt proceedings.
Advocates Shiv Narayan Sharma and Deepak Singh tendered unconditional apologies, stating that they had neither consented to the online publication of the interviews nor had knowledge of the objectionable thumbnails and banners accompanying the videos. Finding their apologies genuine, the court dropped contempt proceedings against them.
However, the High Court noted that Pahuja continued to defend his remarks, claiming these were part of a public interest campaign for judicial reforms and for audio-video recording of court proceedings. In its judgment delivered on April 21, the court convicted him for contempt.
