New Delhi: A litigant who posted online content against particular judges has been held guilty of contempt by Delhi High Court, which said the videos “personally attacked” certain judicial officers and “lowered” the dignity of the judicial system.A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja said Gulshan Pahuja’s content on his channel ‘Fight 4 Judicial Reforms’ was not protected as “free speech”. While a disgruntled litigant may sometimes vent his frustration by making “uncharitable remarks”, which are to be “taken in our stride”, it can’t “mock” the system, the court said.“If one has to attack a judicial officer on his integrity or competence, it must be done with cogent evidence. It cannot be made lightly. We must remember that such an attack, if made without any basis, undermines the authority of the judicial officer and interferes with the dispensation of justice by him/her without fear or favour. Any such criticism must, therefore, be well-founded, specially because the judicial officer, unlike the complainant, has no means to justify his actions in public,” the court observed.It noted that Pahuja “personally attacked three district court judges” and claimed that if a litigant’s case is before them, he should give up any hope for justice.“ What is the foundation of such sweeping remarks against the judicial officers?… Pahuja pronounced his verdict against the judicial officers without any basis…. This is a classic case of criminal contempt,” the court said.Pahuja defended the videos and claimed its was part of his campaign to have audio-video recording of proceedings across all district courts.The court said there can be “no objection” to his campaign as it is on an issue which Pahuja believes will bring about a reform in the justice dispensation system. “However, in our view, naming of the two specific judicial officers and the manner of doing so is not intended to promote the campaign… but to create sensationalism and distrust against the two named judicial officers,” it underlined.The court said that the banner and the introduction to the YouTube video uploaded by Pahuja on March 7 last year, though aimed at Supreme Court, was in effect to lower the dignity of the judicial system as a whole. “It is not just the use of the derogatory term against Supreme Court, but against the entire judicial system.,” it added.The high court also stressed that no judge is expected to be 100 per cent correct all the time, and a litigant, always has the option to approach the higher court in appeal.The two lawyers featured in the videos immediately gave an unconditional apology. The court accepted theseas sincere and discharged them.Pahuja, however, claimed that the videos were made in public interest and aimed at highlighting flaws in the judicial system. He also invoked his right to free speech and argued for broader reforms.