Unfounded personal attacks scandalising judicial officers constitute criminal contempt, exceeding the bounds of fair criticism.

These contempt proceedings originated from two references made by judicial officers in Delhi (Ms. Charu Asiwal, ACJ/CCJ-ARC, and Mr. Ajay Singh Parihar, ACJ-CCJ-ARC) regarding content on the YouTube channel "Fight 4 Judicial Reforms"

Respondent No. 2 (Gulshan Pahuja), the channel owner, uploaded videos and banners containing interviews with Respondent No. 1 in both cases (advocates Shiv Narayan Sharma and Deepak Singh)

The content featured banners naming specific judges and suggesting that if a case is listed before them, "justice cannot be expected"

Pahuja uploaded a video on March 7, 2025, using disparaging language (the term "Capital C") to describe how the Supreme Court and other courts allegedly treat the public

While the Respondent No. 1s in both cases tendered unconditional apologies and were discharged, Respondent No. 2 justified his actions as a bona fide campaign for judicial reform and the implementation of audio-video recording in courts

1. Whether the publication of video thumbnails and banners naming specific judicial officers and claiming they do not dispense justice constitutes criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. Whether the use of derogatory language and generalized attacks against the Supreme Court and the judicial system falls under the protection of fair criticism and freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).

Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines "criminal contempt" as the publication of any matter that scandalizes or lowers the authority of any court

Principles established in Brahma Prakash Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing that contempt jurisdiction protects the public's confidence in the administration of justice rather than the personal dignity of judges

The "wise economy" and "delicate balance" tests from In Re: S. Mulgaokar, which distinguish between fair, bona fide criticism and malicious attacks intended to demoralize the judiciary

Section 13(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, which allows truth as a defense only if it is in the public interest and made bona fide

Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Private Limited regarding the limits of free speech in "open court" contexts

The court reasoned that while Respondent No. 2's campaign for audio-visual recording of court proceedings is a legitimate matter of public debate, he crossed the line into criminal contempt by personally attacking specific judicial officers.

The court found that naming judges in banners and stating that litigants should "give up hope of justice" was not a reformist act but a calculated attempt to create sensationalism and distrust

The court noted that Respondent No. 2 failed to verify the facts of the cases mentioned in his interviews against judicial records, indicating a lack of bona fides

The court found the use of the derogatory "Capital C" reference against the Supreme Court and the wider judiciary to be an unpardonable attempt to mock and bring the entire system into disrepute

Applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself), the court rejected the plea of bona fide intention, holding that such unfounded sweeping remarks undermine the authority of the court and interfere with the fearless dispensation of justice

The court accepted the unconditional apologies of Respondent No. 1s (Shiv Narayan Sharma and Deepak Singh) and discharged them from the proceedings

The court ruled that his actions were not protected by Article 19(1)(a) as they were mala fide and scandalized the judiciary

The court issued a notice to Respondent No. 2 under Rule 13(1) of the Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court) Rules, 2025, to show cause regarding the punishment to be awarded under Section 12 of the Act

The matter was listed for May 12, 2026, for sentencing