Gulshan Pahuja came under legal scrutiny after uploading videos on his YouTube channel criticizing the judicial system and featuring interviews in which allegedly objectionable remarks were made against the courts.
In the videos, Pahuja was seen interviewing advocates Shiv Narayan Sharma and Deepak Singh. According to the court, the lawyers later apologized for their statements and claimed they were unaware that the interviews would eventually be uploaded publicly online.
The Delhi High Court also took note of additional remarks allegedly made by Pahuja targeting the judiciary.
During the proceedings, the court referred to statements in which Pahuja claimed that “adaalaton ki manmarzi badhti jaa rahi hai,” suggesting that arbitrary functioning by courts was increasing and that he did not expect justice.
The court further highlighted another statement where Pahuja allegedly remarked that “manmarzi ka dusra arth taanashahi hota hai,” equating arbitrariness with dictatorship.
Delhi HC sentences YouTuber in contempt case
The sentencing followed the Delhi High Court finding Pahuja guilty of contempt of court.
A bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja imposed the maximum punishment of six months imprisonment on the YouTuber.
The court also levied a fine of ₹2,000.
Court says Pahuja showed no remorse
While pronouncing the sentence, the bench observed that Pahuja displayed no remorse for his actions and instead continued defending his conduct by claiming that his videos were intended to advocate judicial reforms in the public interest.
The judges noted that rather than expressing regret, Pahuja had aggravated the contempt proceedings through further remarks made during hearings before the court.
According to the bench, his conduct demonstrated that he was neither repentant nor deserving of leniency.
The court directed Pahuja to surrender before the registrar general after 60 days unless the Supreme Court of India grants a stay or suspension order.
The direction came after Pahuja informed the court of his intention to approach the Supreme Court against the verdict.
