The Delhi High Court has sentenced YouTuber and advocate Gulshan Pahuja to six months of simple imprisonment in two separate criminal contempt cases after he made controversial remarks against the Indian judiciary. The court ruled that his repeated comments targeting judges and the judicial system crossed the limits of acceptable criticism and amounted to criminal contempt.
The controversy began after Pahuja uploaded several videos on his YouTube channel, “Fight 4 Judicial Reforms,” in which he allegedly made objectionable comments about judges and court functioning. The matter escalated further when he appeared before the Delhi High Court and repeated his criticism during court proceedings.
While addressing the bench, Pahuja reportedly said that courts were becoming increasingly arbitrary and that he had “no hope of getting justice.” He also compared the functioning of the judiciary to “dictatorship,” using the Hindi term “tanashahi.” These remarks angered the judges and became a key factor in the court’s decision.
According to the court order, Pahuja’s comments were not limited to criticism of judgments or legal procedures. Instead, the judges observed that he personally targeted judicial officers and attempted to damage public confidence in the judiciary. The court noted that some of his videos directly named judges and implied that litigants should not expect fair treatment if their cases came before certain judicial officers.
The case originated from complaints filed by three district judges — Charu Asiwal, Ajay Narwal, and Ajay Singh Parihar — after Pahuja allegedly uploaded defamatory content involving them in October 2024. In another video uploaded in March 2025, he reportedly used a controversial term while referring to the Supreme Court, further worsening the situation.
A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja stated that Pahuja showed no regret or willingness to change his behaviour despite being repeatedly warned. The judges observed that even during oral submissions in court, he continued making “scandalous” statements against the judicial system.
The bench strongly remarked that failing to impose strict punishment could encourage similar behaviour in the future and weaken public trust in courts. As a result, the High Court imposed the maximum punishment available under the Contempt of Courts Act — six months of simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 2,000 in each case. However, the sentences will run concurrently, meaning he will serve both at the same time.
Despite the ruling, the court granted temporary relief to Pahuja after he expressed his intention to challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court. Under Section 19(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act, the Delhi High Court suspended the sentence for 60 days, allowing him time to file an appeal before the apex court.
The judgment has sparked discussions on the balance between freedom of speech and respect for judicial institutions in India. While some people believe criticism of the judiciary is a democratic right, others argue that repeated personal attacks and allegations against judges can damage public faith in the legal system.
The case also highlights the growing influence of social media platforms in shaping public opinion around legal and political issues. As content creators increasingly discuss judicial matters online, courts may continue to face challenges in defining the line between fair criticism and contempt of court.
