Criminal contempt is established when criticism of judicial officers is malicious, unfounded, and intended to scandalize the court or lower its authority. While fair, reasoned criticism is protected, defamatory or disparaging attacks that erode public confidence in the administration of justice are not immunized by free speech rights.

Headnote:(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2(c) - Criminal Contempt - Scandalizing the court - The object of contempt proceedings is to protect the public’s confidence in the administration of justice, not to protect individual judges from personal imputations. Scandalizing the court includes attacks on judges or the court as a whole that cast unwarranted, defamatory aspersions on character or ability, tending to create distrust in the judicial system. (Paras 40-41)

(B) Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India - Freedom of Speech and Expression - While the judiciary is not immune to criticism, and fair/reasonable criticism is protected, disparaging, scurrilous, or malicious attacks intended to lower the authority of the court and destroy public confidence are not protected. A distinction must be drawn between personal libel and the erosion of public interest in the due administration of justice. (Paras 42-44)

Facts of the case:
Contempt petitions originated from references regarding online video interviews and accompanying banners/thumbnails that made derogatory remarks against various judicial officers and the judiciary at large. The respondents in these petitions uploaded content accusing specific judicial officers of corruption and incompetence, claiming to be part of a campaign for judicial reform. Two of the respondents tendered unconditional apologies, which were accepted, while the primary contemnor justified the actions as bona fide and in the public interest, asserting a right to critique the system.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that while campaigning for procedural reforms like audio-video recording of proceedings is permissible, naming specific judges and creating sensationalized content to cast doubt on their integrity without basis constitutes criminal contempt. The actions of the respondent involved malicious intent to lower the authority of the court, falling outside the ambit of protective fair criticism.

Issues: Whether the publication of videos and banners containing derogatory allegations against specific judicial officers and the judiciary constitutes criminal contempt under the Act, and whether such expression is protected under fundamental rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that attacks on the integrity or competence of judicial officers, when made without cogent evidence and with the clear intent to scandalize the court or weaken public trust, amount to criminal contempt. The protection of free speech does not extend to scurrilous, malicious, or unfounded attacks that interfere with the administration of justice.

Result: Respondent No. 2 found guilty of criminal contempt of court; contempt proceedings against other respondents dropped upon acceptance of their apologies.

Table of Content
1. factual basis of contempt charges regarding youtube videos and banners. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 18)
2. respondents' defense based on free speech and bona fide criticism. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
3. distinction between fair criticism and criminal contempt of court. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
4. final adjudication of guilt, sentencing notice, and discharge orders. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59)

J U D G M E N T

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. These Contempt Petitions have been registered on the reference dated 15.01.2025 addressed by Ms. Charu Asiwal, the learned ACJ/CCJ-ACR, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi; and the reference dated 10.03.2025 addressed by Mr. Ajay Singh Parihar, the learned ACJ-CCJ-ARC, North, Rohini Courts, respectively, making complaints regarding contentious videos and banners (dated 29.10.2024 and 05.01.2025 as far as Contempt Case (Crl) 3/2025 is concerned, and dated 03.03.2025 and 07.03.2025 as far as Contempt Case (Crl) 4/2025 is concerned) uploaded by Mr. Gulshan Pahuja, who is the respondent no.2 in both of these petitions, on his YouTube channel “Fight 4 Judicial Reforms”.

CONT. CAS. (CRL) 3/2025:

2. In the YouTube video uploaded on 29.10.2024, the respondent no. 2 interviews Mr.Shiv Narayan Sharma, Advocate (respondent no.1 in the said contempt case), and the introduction itself gives the tenor of the interview. A photo transcript of the same is as under:-

3. The interview is primarily aimed towards a demand for having audio-video recordings of the Court proceedings in general and discusses two cases which had been allegedly dealt with by the above named judicial officers.

4. The respondent no.1, Mr. Shiv Narayan Sharma, in the course of the interview, details his alleged experience in two cases; one before the Court of Ms. Charu Asiwal and the other before the Court of Mr. Ajay Narwal. In the course of the interview, however, respondent no. 1 makes some objectionable and derogatory remarks against the judicial officers and the judicial institution as a whole. We are not giving complete details of the same as respondent no. 1, Mr. Shiv Narayan Sharma, has filed a reply dated 19.08.2025, tendering his unconditional and unqualified apology for the same. He has also appeared in person before us and has reiterated his apology with an undertaking not to make such scandalous and derogatory remarks in future. We find the apology to be genuine and, therefore, accept the same. For the said reason, we drop the proceedings and discharge respondent no. 1, Mr. Shiv Narayan Sharma in Cont. Cas. (Crl.) 3/2025.

5. The respondent no. 2, however, has continued to justify his actions and, therefore, we shall be proceeding with further consideration of the two Contempt Cases against him.

6. As noted hereinabove, in the reference dated 15.01.2025, Ms. Charu Asiwal has also made a reference to a second YouTube video uploaded by respondent no. 2, Mr. Pahuja, on 05.01.2025 on his YouTube channel “Fight 4 Judicial Reforms”. The said video starts with the banner, as under:-

7. In the video, after a brief introduction wherein the respondent no.2, without naming anyone, makes a complaint regarding some judges not working or being corrupt. Thereafter, the entire interview of respondent no. 1, Mr. Shiv Narayan Sharma, as contained in video no.1 dated 29.10.2024, reference to which has been made hereinabove, appears.

8. Ms. Asiwal, in her reference dated 15.01.2025, has stated that the second video was posted by the respondent no. 2 only because the first video did not attract many viewers and that the respondent no. 2 wanted to make it more scandalous by adding the banner at the inception of the video, as has been reproduced hereinabove. His intent has been fulfilled as almost immediately the video started attracting attention and had almost 13,00

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6226

Navin Chawla, Ravinder Dudeja, JJCourt On Its Own Motion – AppellantVersusGulshan Pahuja – RespondentCONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2025|CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2025

Cases Referred (5)

Navin Chawla, Ravinder Dudeja, JJ
Court On Its Own Motion – Appellant
Versus
Gulshan Pahuja – Respondent
CONT.CAS.(CRL) 3/2025|CONT.CAS.(CRL) 4/2025