New Delhi: The Delhi high court has sentenced a YouTuber to six months’ imprisonment in contempt cases over his videos that “personally attacked” certain judicial officers and “lowered” the judicial system’s dignity.
The order was passed by a bench of justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja on May 16 and released on Monday.
Following references by two judicial officers, the court has initiated a suo motu contempt petition against the YouTuber and two advocates for making scandalous remarks about the judiciary, including unfounded allegations of bias against judicial officers, in videos featuring interviews with the two advocates.
While the concerned advocates tendered unconditional apologies, stating that they had neither consented to the uploading of their interviews nor been aware of the objectionable thumbnails or banners accompanying the videos, the court accepted their explanations as genuine and dropped the contempt proceedings against them.
However, the YouTuber continued to defend his remarks, claiming they were part of public-interest advocacy aimed at judicial reforms and the promotion of audio-video recording of court proceedings. Consequently, the court held the YouTuber guilty of criminal contempt on April 21 and scheduled the matter for sentencing.
It, however, suspended the sentence for 60 days, since the YouTuber said that he intended to challenge the verdict before the Supreme Court.
During the hearing of arguments on sentence, the YouTuber contended that the April 21 verdict suffered from procedural irregularities, claiming that he was not granted a full hearing and that the case records based on which he made the comments were neither summoned from the trial court nor were the judicial officers referred to in the videos examined as witnesses.
During the hearing, he again made controversial remarks, alleging that he had no expectation of justice from the Indian judicial system.
He stated that he would neither seek a reduction of sentence nor expect justice from the court, and drew comparisons with freedom fighters and others who had refused to seek leniency from the British government while facing punishment.
The amicus curiae, however, said the YouTuber’s submissions were irrelevant for punishment.
In its seven-page verdict, the court sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment, observing that despite its findings that his actions had scandalised the court and lowered its authority, he neither expressed remorse nor indicated any course correction. Instead, the court noted, he continued to maintain that his actions were intended to improve the judicial system.
“As noted by us in this order hereinabove, he, in fact, compounds his contempt by making further scandalous submissions before this Court and thus, evidently, he is neither repentant nor deserves any mercy. We also find that by not imposing adequate punishment on him, we may encourage him to repeat these acts in future and to embolden him in doing the same,” the bench said.
It, however, suspended the sentence for 60 days, since the YouTuber said that he intended to challenge the verdict before the Supreme Court.
