New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has sentenced YouTuber Gulshan Pahuja to six months’ imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹2,000 for committing criminal contempt of court by making scandalous remarks against the judiciary in his videos as well as during arguments before the Court.
The Court noted that he had drawn comparisons between the judiciary and a dictatorship by stating during arguments that he expected no justice from the Indian judicial system and alleging that “adaalaton ki manmarzi badhti jaa rahi hai aur main koi nyay ki umeed nahi kar raha”, which roughly translates to, “the arbitrary actions of the courts are increasing and I am not expecting any justice”, and “manmarzi ka dusra arth taanashahi hota hai”, which translates to, “the synonym for arbitrariness is dictatorship”, Bar and Bench reported.
Reportedly, while appearing before the Court, Pahuja repeated his “tanashahi” (dictatorship) remark against the judiciary and stated that he had “no hopes of getting justice”.
The Bench observed that Pahuja had shown “no regret” or “course correction” despite being found guilty of criminal contempt.
In the order passed on May 16, the Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja imposed the maximum sentence of six months’ imprisonment for the offence, stating that a lesser punishment would further embolden him.
“We also find that by not imposing adequate punishment on him, we may encourage him to repeat these acts in future and to embolden him in doing the same,” the Court said.
However, since Pahuja expressed his 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.
Case background
Pahuja runs a YouTube channel named ‘Fight 4 Judicial Reforms’. Three district judges, Charu Asiwal, Ajay Narwal and Ajay Singh Parihar,filed complaints after Pahuja uploaded videos and banners on his YouTube channel in October 2024 naming them.
Pahuja allegedly personally attacked the three Delhi judicial officers and even implied that if a litigant’s case was listed before them, the litigant should not expect justice.
In another video uploaded by Pahuja on 7 March 2025, he used the term “Capital C” as a descriptor for the Supreme Court.
