Full Breakdown
Delhi High Court Sentences YouTuber-Advocate Gulshan Pahuja to Six-Month Imprisonment for Criminal Contempt
5/20/2026, 8:04:48 PM
Sentencing Judgment
On 16 May 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja of the Delhi High Court sentenced advocate-YouTuber Gulshan Pahuja to six months’ imprisonment in each of two criminal contempt matters, with the terms to run concurrently. A fine of INR2,000 was imposed in each case. Pursuant to Section 19(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act, the sentence was suspended for 60 days, permitting Pahuja to seek a stay from Supreme Court before surrendering.
Legal Framework and Procedural Background
The contempt actions were filed under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, after videos on Pahuja’s channel “Fight 4 Judicial Reforms” alleged misconduct by judicial officers in *Court on its Own Motion v. Shiv Narayan Sharma & Ors.* and *Deepak Singh, Advocate & Anr.* A prior restraint order issued in May 2025 barred uploads targeting judges. The bench had earlier affirmed a conviction dated 21 April 2026 and declined to revisit that judgment during the sentencing hearing.
Principal Parties
The dispute involved Gulshan Pahuja, who maintains his remarks sought judicial reform; the Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja, who delivered the sentence; Amicus Curiae Harsh Prabhakar, who advocated for custodial punishment; and advocates Shiv Narayan Sharma and Deepak Singh, initially flagged in the videos but later absolved after apologies.
Chronology of the Contempt Proceedings
The process began with a May 2025 restraint order, proceeded to a conviction on 21 April 2026, culminated in sentencing on 16 May 2026, and was followed by Pahuja’s indication that he will appeal to the Supreme Court.
Court’s Findings
The bench held that Pahuja’s statements “scandalised the court and lowered its authority.” It observed that he “showed no regret” and “did not suggest any course correction,” warning that leniency could embolden conduct. The court rejected Pahuja’s reliance on Supreme Court precedents, deeming them inapplicable to the facts.
Pahuja’s Counter-Arguments
Pahuja contended that the prosecution bore the burden of proof and that the court had not summoned the judicial officers he criticized, thereby violating natural principles. He asserted his comments reflected a loss of faith in the judiciary, calling court actions “arbitrary” and equating “manmarzi” with “dictatorship.”
Quotes
- “Adaalaton ki manmarzi badhti jaa rahi hai aur main koi nyay ki umeed nahi kar raha.” — Gulshan Pahuja
- “Manmarzi ka dusra arth taanashahi hota hai.” — Gulshan Pahuja
- “The contemnor shows no regret for the same. He also does not suggest any course correction.” — Delhi High Court bench
- “We may encourage him to repeat these acts in future and embolden him in doing the same.” — Delhi High Court bench
Implications and Pending Appeal
The suspended sentence grants Pahuja a 60-day window to file a petition before the Supreme Court. The case underscores the judiciary’s approach to contempt involving public criticism and highlights the tension between free expression and the protection of authority.
