The Delhi High Court on Tuesday held YouTuber Gulshan Pahuja guilty of criminal contempt of court for making scandalous comments about the judiciary, including baseless allegations of bias against judicial officers, in his videos [Court On Its Own Motion Vs Shiv Narayan Sharma Adv and Ors].

The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja emphasised that allegations against the integrity of a judicial officer cannot be made lightly.

“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 dispensation of justice by him/her without fear or favour. Any such criticism must therefore be well founded, specially because the Judicial Officer, unlike the complainant, has no means to justify his actions in public," the judgment stated.

The controversial vidoes were uploaded by Gulshan Pahuja on his YouTube channel “Fight 4 Judicial Reforms."

In the videos, Pahuja was seen taking interviews of advocates named Shiv Narayan Sharma and Deepak Singh. In the course of the interview, it was alleged that advocates made certain derogatory remarks against the judicial officers and the judicial institution.

Three judicial officers flagged such videos and banners in a reference made to the Delhi High Court seeking the initiation of contempt of court proceedings.

The lawyers concerned, advocates Shiv Narayan Sharma and Deepak Singh, gave unconditional apologies. They said that they had not consented to their interviews being uploaded online, nor were they aware of the objectionable thumbnails or banners posted along with the videos.

The High Court found their apologies to be genuine and dropped the contempt proceedings against them.

However, Gulshan Pahuja continued to justify his comments, describing them as part of public interest advocacy for judicial reforms and a campaign for audio-video recordings of court proceedings.

In its ruling, the Court clarified that the contempt proceedings against Pahuja is not targeted at his campaign for the audio-visual recording of court proceedings.

“As far as the campaign launched by the respondent no. 2 for having audio-visual recording of the court proceedings is concerned, there can be no objection, certainly not in contempt jurisdiction, as this is his campaign on an issue which he believes will bring about a reform in the justice dispensation system," it said.

However, the Court pointed out that it could not brush aside the allegations made in these videos against certain judicial officers without any basis.

The Court noted that in the YouTube videos, Pahuja made remarks, laced with expletives, about some judges being corrupt and not working. Though fair criticism is allowed, the Court took an adverse view on concerted targetting of the judicial officers without verification. 

The Court stated that the video was not uploaded with the intent to start a healthy debate on the court’s functioning, but for creating sensationalism, distrust towards the judiciary and to lower the authority of judges.

“In the present case, the respondent no. 2 [Pahuja]  has not confined himself to this debate nor is his venting out frustration aimed to be a fair criticism. He has personally attacked three Judicial Officers and even imputed that in case a litigant's case is listed before them, such litigant should not expect justice. What is the foundation of such over-sweeping remarks against the Judicial Officers?” the Court questioned.

The Court observed that the banner and the introduction to Pahuja's video on the Supreme Court’s functioning has the effect of lowering the dignity of the judicial system as a whole.

“It is not just the use of the derogatory term against the Supreme Court, but against the entire judicial system. It is intended to mock the system, bringing it to disrepute and to lower its dignity and authority. It is not the criticism of the orders/judgments passed by the Supreme Court, but of the judicial system as a whole.”

The Court added that aspersions cannot be cast on a judge by disgruntled persons merely because an order was not passed in their favour. 

"When a Judicial Officer dispenses justice, he/she is bound to make mistakes; no judicial officer is or can be expected to be 100% correct all the time; it is for this reason that we have a hierarchy of courts, where a litigant can approach the higher court if he/she is dissatisfied by the verdict. In such remedy, may be the order is set aside, however, this also does not mean that the judicial officer passing the original order did not act with integrity or was incompetent. In the present case, even this stage had not reached. The respondent no. 2 [Pahuja] pronounced his verdict against the concerned Judicial Officers without any basis and thereby undermined their authority. This is a classic case of criminal contempt being committed by him,” the Court stated.

The Court concluded that Pahuja's conduct was unpardonable and warranted strict action. Therefore, the Court held Pahuja guilty of criminal contempt of court. 

The Court is yet to pronunce its punishment. It has sought Pahuja's response on this aspect within two weeks. The Court also directed Pahuja to be personally present on the next date of hearing on May 12. 

Advocate Harsh Prabhakar assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae along with advocates Dhruv Chaudhry, Shubham Sourav and Vijit Singhn.

Advocates Vivek Kumar Tandon and Laxmi Gupta appeared for the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

Senior Advocates Sacchin Puri and Sanjeev Sagar with advocates Mehak Ghaloth, Abhishek Singh, Anil Dhyani, Ashna Bhola and Vidushi Srivastava appeared for advocates Shiv Sharma and Deepak Singh.

Gulshan Pahuja appeared in person.

Public Prosecutor Aman Usman, with advocates Manvendra Yadav and Atiq Ur Rehmann appeared for the State.

[Read judgment]