In a couple of contempt petitions before the Delhi High Court on reference made by ACJ/CCJ-ACR, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, as well as ACJ-CCJ-ARC, North, Rohini Courts regarding contentious videos and banners uploaded by respondent 2 on his YouTube channel – “Fight 4 Judicial Reforms”, a Division Bench of Justice Naveen Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja found respondent 2 guilty of committing criminal contempt of Court as per the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
The first petition concerned a YouTube video uploaded on 29-10-2024 by respondent 2, interviewing an advocate (respondent 1), which primarily sought a demand for audio-video recordings of court proceedings in general, along with a discussion of two cases allegedly dealt with by certain Judicial Officers. The said advocate detailed his experience in cases before Judicial Officers and made certain objectionable remarks against them, as well as the judicial institute as a whole. The court refrained from giving complete details since the advocate who appeared in the interview had tendered his unconditional apology before the Court with an undertaking not to make such derogatory remarks in the future. Hence, proceedings against him were dropped.
However, respondent 2 continued to justify his actions. In her reference, the ACJ/CCJ-ACR, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, another YouTube video was cited, which began with an objectionable banner and claimed that some judges were not working and were corrupt. After which, the entire video of respondent 1 appeared. It was asserted that the second video was posted only because the first did not attract many views, and that respondent 2 wanted to make it more scandalous by adding the banner at the beginning. It was also mentioned that, since the video had almost 13,000 views, she was compelled to file a complaint with the Joint CP, Special Cell, Delhi Police.
The Court clarified that the contempt jurisdiction was not being exercised to oppose the respondent’s campaign for having audio- visual recording of court proceedings. However, it was said that naming two specific judicial officers and the manner in which it was done was not intended to promote the campaign but only to create sensationalism and distrust against such judicial officers, while also lowering their authority.
The other petition concerned the video dated 03-03-2025 uploaded by respondent 2, which featured an interview with another advocate who narrated the alleged proceedings of a case before the judicial officer holding the electricity court, and also contained derogatory remarks by the said advocate against the court. However, it was noted that the said advocate had also given an unconditional apology to the Court, which is why he was also discharged. The petition also mentioned another video uploaded on 07-03-2025 that contained derogatory remarks against the judicial system.
Referring to Brahma Prakash Sharma & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1953) 1 SCC 813, the Court stated that when attacks or comments, derogatory to a judge’s dignity, are made, a distinction must be made between defamation and what is calculated to interfere with the due course of justice and proper administration of law by the court. It was also said that even though judges and courts are open to criticism, if it is found that the intention of such criticism is to interfere with the administration of justice or to lower its dignity, the same must be severely dealt with.
Further, considering respondent 2’s campaign, the Court stated that even if he highlighted the cases where, according to him, the audio- video recording of the proceedings would have been vital, even then his actions would not amount to contempt but would only be intended to generate a healthy debate on what is required to strengthen the judicial system. The Court said that it would have let the general comments pass as fair criticism or venting of anger by a person who felt that he did not get the justice that he deserved, since one or the other party may vent out his frustration by making uncharitable remarks, which must be taken in stride and not in an oversensitive manner. However, the Court found that respondent 2 had personally attacked three judicial officers, and even asserted that in case a litigant’s case is listed before them, then such a litigant should not expect justice.
Respondent 2 did not provide any justification for his sweeping statements and also stated that he did not even have the facts of the cases discussed in the subject interviews. The Court stated that respondent 2’s intention was not to generate a healthy debate, but to scandalize the court, which was not bona fide but malafide and done only to lower the reputation of the judicial system. It was said that if one has to attack a judicial officer’s integrity or competence, it must be done with cogent evidence, especially because the judicial officer, unlike the complainant, has no means to justify his actions in public.
Regarding the YouTube video uploaded on 07-03-2025, the Court stated that it was not only the use of derogatory language against the Supreme Court, but also against the entire judicial system, as it was intended to mock the system. The Court found that this was a case of criminal contempt of court, which was unpardonable and for which strict action was required. The Code also stated that such action was certainly not protected under Article 19 of the Constitution.
Thus, the Court found respondent 2 guilty of criminal contempt of court under section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Providing responding 2 an opportunity to make submissions on the punishment to be awarded to him, the Court gave him notice thereof under Rule 13(1) of the Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court) Rules, 2025, and granted him 2 weeks to file his submissions.
The matter is now listed on 12-05-2026, and respondent 2 has been directed to remain personally present.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr.Harsh Prabhakar (Amicus Curiae), Mr.Dhruv Chaudhry, Mr.Shubham Sourav, Mr.Vijit Singh, Mr.Vivek Kumar Tandon, Ms.Laxmi Gupta, Mr.Krishna Shukla
For Respondents – Mr. Sacchin Puri (Sr. Adv), Mr. Sanjeev Sagar (Sr. Adv), Ms. Mehak Ghaloth, Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. Anil Dhyani, Ms. Ashna Bhola, Ms. Vidushi Srivastava, Mr. Aman Usman (APP), Mr. Manvendra Yadav, Mr. Atiq Ur Rehman
