“Manmarzi Ka Dusra Arth Taanashahi”: Delhi HC Sentences YouTuber to Six Months in Jail for Equating Judiciary with Dictatorship

Key Points

Delhi High Court on 16 May 2026 sentenced YouTuber and advocate Gulshan Pahuja to six months imprisonment under multiple charges of criminal contempt of court and a fine of ₹2,000 for each count of contempt. The court held that Pahuja’s videos, which equated courts with a dictatorship, scandalised the judiciary and lowered the authority of courts.

The order, passed by a division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, was released on 18 May 2026. The Bench remarked that it was imposing ‘the maximum punishment’ under criminal contempt proceedings, saying, “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 case centred on videos uploaded on Pahuja’s YouTube channel, “Fight 4 Judicial Reforms”, where he interviewed advocates Shiv Narayan Sharma and Deepak Singh and made allegations against judicial officers. According to the court, the videos contained derogatory remarks against judges and court functioning.

Three judicial officers had brought the videos and related banners to the attention of the Delhi High Court, leading to suo motu contempt proceedings.

The bench observed that Pahuja had personally attacked judicial officers and suggested that litigants whose matters came before those officers should not expect justice. The court earlier held that the intent behind the videos was to scandalise judicial officers and lower the image of the judiciary in the eyes of the public.

The two advocates featured in the interviews later tendered unconditional apologies before the court. They stated that they had neither consented to the uploading of the interviews online nor were aware of the objectionable thumbnails and banners used alongside the videos. The court accepted their explanations and dropped contempt proceedings against them.

See Also: While the Supreme Court Concerned Over an NCERT Chapter on Corruption in Judiciary, Slow Action on Complaints Against Judges Exposes Judicial Unwillingness

Pahuja, however, continued to defend his remarks, maintaining that his videos were part of a campaign for judicial reforms and greater transparency, including audio and video recording of court proceedings. During arguments on sentencing, the court recorded that Pahuja made further remarks against the judicial system inside the courtroom itself.

According to the order, he stated that “adaalaton ki manmarzi badhti jaa rahi hai aur main koi nyay ki umeed nahi kar raha” and further added that “manmarzi ka dusra arth taanashahi hota hai”, comparing judicial arbitrariness to dictatorship.

The court said these submissions compounded the contempt rather than mitigating it.

“The contemnor shows no regret for the same. He also does not suggest any course correction,” the Bench observed. “In fact, he maintains that what he did was with the intent of improving the judicial system. He, in fact, compounds his contempt by making further scandalous submissions before this Court and thus, evidently, he is neither repentant nor deserves any mercy.”

Amicus curiae Harsh Prabhakar informed the court that Pahuja had continued uploading videos targeting judicial officers despite an earlier restraint order passed in May 2025. He argued that merely imposing a fine would not be sufficient.

The court also rejected Pahuja’s arguments that the proceedings suffered from procedural irregularities. He had claimed that judicial records relating to the videos were not summoned, the judicial officers named in the videos were not examined as witnesses, and he had been denied an opportunity to cross examine them.

The Bench held that it could not review its earlier judgment convicting him for contempt, though he remained free to challenge the order before a higher court.

Pahuja also told the court that he would neither seek reduction of sentence nor expect justice from the court, drawing comparisons with freedom fighters who refused leniency from British authorities.

Since Pahuja indicated that he intended 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. The court directed that if no protective order is granted by the Supreme Court within that period, Pahuja must surrender before the Registrar General after the expiry of 60 days.

[DS]

Suggested Reading: