Delhi High Court Imposes Six-Month Jail Term on YouTuber for Criminal Contempt: Scandalizing the Judiciary Attracts Zero Tolerance
Background and Overview
The Delhi High Court has delivered a firm and unambiguous ruling that offensive, derogatory, and scandalous remarks targeting the judiciary will not be countenanced under any circumstances. In the case of Court On Its Own Motion vs Shiv Narayan Sharma Adv And Ors Deepak Singh Adv And Anr, bearing case numbers CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2025 & CRL.M.A. 2184/2026, CRL.M.A. 9152/2026, CRL.M.A. 15810/2026, CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2025, cited under Neutral Citation No.: 2026:DHC:4423-DB, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court pronounced its oral judgment on 16.05.2026, sentencing YouTuber Gulshan Pahuja to six months of simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000 in each of the two criminal contempt matters.
The judgment was authored by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla, sitting alongside Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravinder Dudeja, forming the Division Bench that adjudicated these contempt proceedings. The sentences in both matters are directed to run concurrently, and in default of payment of the fine, an additional one month of simple imprisonment was imposed.
The Nature of the Contemptuous Conduct
The contemnor, Gulshan Pahuja, had uploaded videos on his YouTube channel that contained disparaging and scandalous remarks directed at judicial officers. These videos were found by the Court to have lowered the authority of the courts and scandalized the institution of the judiciary. His conduct was adjudged to have undermined public confidence in the judicial system.
Earlier, by its judgment dated 21.04.2026, the Division Bench had already returned a finding of guilt against Gulshan Pahuja for having committed criminal contempt of court as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. At that stage, the Court had extended an opportunity to the contemnor to make submissions on the quantum of punishment under Section 12 of the said Act, issuing a notice under Rule 13(1) of the Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court) Rules, 2025, with liberty granted to him to file written submissions within two weeks.
The Contemnor's Response and Submissions
Application Seeking Recall of Conviction
Rather than limiting his response to submissions on sentencing, the contemnor filed an application — Crl. M.A. 15810/2026 — seeking recall and setting aside of the judgment dated 21.04.2026 that had found him guilty. He contended that:
- The conviction was procedurally flawed as he was not fully heard before the finding of guilt was recorded.
- The case files referenced in his videos were never summoned from the trial court.
- The judicial officers named in the videos were not produced as witnesses, and he was denied an opportunity to cross-examine them.
- Documents filed along with his reply were allegedly not considered by the Bench prior to passing the judgment.
- The judgment lacked adequate reasoning for the finding of guilt.
- Since these proceedings are criminal in nature, the onus of proof lay on the Court — acting as the prosecution — to establish that his statements constituted contempt.
He further filed written submissions styled as "written submission for debate on the quantum of sentence" and was also extended the opportunity of making oral submissions before the Bench.