New Delhi, Apr 22 The Delhi High Court has held a YouTuber guilty of contempt of court over videos that "personally attacked" certain judicial officers and "lowered" the dignity of the judicial system.
A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja said Gulshan Pahuja's content on his channel 'Fight 4 Judicial Reforms' was not protected as "free speech" under the Constitution and asked him to file his submissions on the issue of punishment within two weeks.
The bench, in the judgement passed on April 21, observed that a disgruntled litigant may sometimes vent out his frustration by making "uncharitable remarks", which are to be "taken in our stride", but in this case, Pahuja did not vent out his frustration as fair criticism and his intent was only to scandalise and lower the image of the judicial officers and the judiciary.
"He has personally attacked three Judicial Officers and even imputed that in case a litigant's case is listed before them, such litigant should not expect justice. What is the foundation of such over-sweeping remarks against the Judicial Officers?... The respondent no. 2 pronounced his verdict against the concerned Judicial Officers without any basis and thereby undermined their authority. This is a classic case of criminal contempt being committed by him," the court said in the judgement.
The court said that the banner and the introduction to the YouTube video uploaded by Pahuja on March 7 last year, though aimed at the Supreme Court, was in effect to lower the dignity of the judicial system as a whole.
"It is not just the use of the derogatory term against the Supreme Court, but against the entire judicial system. It is intended to mock the system, bringing it to disrepute and to lower its dignity and authority," it added.
The court stated that no judicial officer is expected to be 100 per cent correct all the time, and a litigant, therefore, has the option to approach the higher court on appeal.
But an attack on a judicial officer's integrity or competence must be done with cogent evidence as a baseless accusation undermines his authority and interferes with the dispensation of justice by him without fear or favour, the court said.
It stated that a judicial officer has no means to justify his actions in public and any criticism must therefore be well-founded.
The court, however, held that Pahuja's campaign to have audio-video recording of the court proceedings did not amount to contempt.
The court discharged two advocates who featured in the videos after they tendered unconditional apologies.
