‘Taanashahi’ Remark Against Judiciary: Delhi High Court Jails YouTuber-Advocate For 6 Months In Contempt Case

The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja delivered the order while dealing with submissions made by the contemnor on sentencing, including a plea seeking recall of the Court’s earlier judgment dated 21.04.2026, which had already held him guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The Court had earlier issued notice under Rule 13(1) of the Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court) Rules, 2025, granting him an opportunity to address arguments on the quantum of punishment.

The contemnor argued that the earlier judgment suffered from procedural irregularities, including alleged denial of full hearing, non-summoning of trial court records, and failure to examine judicial officers mentioned in his social media posts. He also contended that the Court had not properly considered documents filed along with his reply and that the conviction was contrary to principles of natural justice and constitutional protections under Articles 14, 20(3) and 21.

He further submitted that, in criminal contempt proceedings, the burden of proof lay on the prosecution and argued that he should be allowed to demonstrate that the original finding of guilt was itself incorrect while addressing sentencing.

However, during oral submissions, the Bench recorded that the contemnor again made scandalous remarks against the judiciary, stating that he had no faith in the Indian judicial system and describing the functioning of courts as arbitrary and akin to “manmarzi” (whims). "He again makes scandalous remarks inasmuch as he states that he expects no justice from the Indian judicial system and states ‘adaalaton ki manmarzi badhti jaa rahi hai aur main koi nyay ki umeed nahi kar raha’ and also states ‘manmarzi ka dusra arth taanashahi hota hai’," the bench noted

The Court noted that the contemnor also compared his stance to freedom fighters who had refused leniency from the British regime and reiterated that he would not seek mercy or reduction of sentence.

Amicus Curiae, Advocate Harsh Prabhakar submitted that the contemnor’s arguments were effectively an attempt to reopen the merits of the conviction, which was impermissible at the sentencing stage. It was also pointed out that the contemnor had continued to make allegations against judicial officers despite a prior restraint order passed in 2025, thereby aggravating the contempt. The Amicus Curiae also argued that imposition of a fine alone would be insufficient and recommended a custodial sentence, leaving the quantum to the Court’s discretion.

The Bench observed that the contemnor showed no remorse or course correction and, instead, compounded the contempt through his conduct during proceedings. The Court held that his actions had scandalised the institution and undermined public confidence in the judiciary. It further noted that it could not sit in review of its earlier judgment and that the contemnor had the remedy of challenging the conviction before the Supreme Court in accordance with law.

"In the present case, as found in our judgment dated 21.04.2026, the contemnor, by his acts, has scandalized the court and lowered the authority of the Court. The contemnor shows no regret for the same. He also does not suggest any course correction. In fact, he maintains that what he did was with the intent of improving the judicial system," it noted.

The Court also rejected reliance placed on various Supreme Court judgments cited by the contemnor, holding them inapplicable to the facts of the present case.

Concluding that the case warranted maximum punishment, the Court sentenced the contemnor to six months’ simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000 in each of the two contempt matters. The sentences are to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine, the Court imposed an additional one month’s simple imprisonment.

However, noting the contemnor’s stated intention to appeal, the Court exercised power under Section 19(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act and suspended the sentence for 60 days, subject to any further orders of the Supreme Court. It directed that in case no stay is granted by the Supreme Court, the contemnor shall surrender before the Registrar General upon expiry of the suspension period.

The Court disposed of both contempt petitions, while expressing appreciation for the assistance provided by the Amicus Curiae and the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP).