Today, On 21st May, The Delhi High Court strongly criticised Abhijit Iyer-Mitra for his tweets against Newslaundry journalists, saying, “A person who uses such language should not be heard,” and ordered the posts to be taken down.
The Delhi High Court sharply criticized Abhijit Iyer-Mitra’s social media posts referring to Newslaundry’s women journalists as “prostitutes.”
During the hearing, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav engaged in a heated exchange with Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, who was defending Iyer-Mitra.
The Court even warned that it might instruct the police to file a criminal case against Iyer-Mitra.
The Court stated,
“While going through the nature of the language used by the defendant, the court was of the prima facie opinion that it is not permissible in any civilised society and was about to pass an interim order. However, Mr. Jai Anant Dehadrai appears for the defendants and he contends that he has points to raise; he however concedes the choice of words could have been avoided. He says, without prejudice to his contention, the defendant will take down the abusive posts in 5 hours. It is taken on record and he shall act accordingly.”
The Court was addressing a Rs.2 crore defamation suit filed by Newslaundry Executive Editor Manisha Pande and eight other women journalists against Iyer-Mitra for his derogatory remarks.
Advocate Bani Dixit, representing the journalists, stated while reading the tweets,
“Plaintiffs are journalists from all walks of life. These are defamatory articles beyond the bounds of criticism. These are all working women.”
The Court questioned Dehadrai,
“How can you defend this? Can you use this kind of language against women in a civilised society? We will not hear you unless you take down these posts. A person who uses such language should not be heard unless you take down the posts.”
The Delhi High Court cautioned political commentator Abhijit Iyer-Mitra that an FIR could be registered against him if he did not remove allegedly defamatory posts aimed at Newslaundry Executive Editor Manisha Pande and eight other female journalists. T
he court gave him a five-hour deadline to take down the content.
High Court remarked that the posts shared on X (formerly Twitter) between February and May 2025 were unacceptable and said that such remarks “not permissible in any civilised society”
In response to Dehadrai’s claim that the tweets were not attributable to anyone, Justice Kaurav countered,
“They are attributable to plaintiffs. If it’s not attributable to any person, what is the point of putting it out?”
Dehadrai argued,
“They are not a news organization. I am a geopolitical expert. I have also tweeted about their questionable sources of income.”
The Court replied,
“Whatever questionable income is, it is not under challenge. What we can look into is something that is under challenge. Going by any principle of law, such language in a public platform… Does he understand the definition of brothel? Can someone taking funds from questionable sources be called a brothel? You may have multiple questions; the choice of words is impermissible.”
Dehadrai then claimed that allowing the plaintiffs to pursue a civil claim would effectively shut his client down.
The Court warned,
“In that case, we as a constitutional court will suo motu direct registration of a criminal FIR against the defendant.”
When Dehadrai continued, the Court admonished him,
“Don’t try to be oversmart! You are trying to be oversmart with the Court! For each observation, the Court is about to make, you interject repeatedly.”
Dehadrai then apologized, saying,
“I was trying to make an argument hypothetically. I am sorry, I apologize. I was only making an argument, my lords.”
The Court responded,
“If you want, I can show you the entire records. I tried to impress upon you that first you take down, then I will hear you. Thereafter, you went on to say you are not being heard! I am accepting your submission that there is a criminal remedy available. It’s an enlightening submission.”
Ultimately, Dehadrai agreed to remove the posts within five hours.
The case will be heard again next week.
The suit concerns eight tweets made by Iyer-Mitra on X between February and May 2025, seeking to prevent him from making further defamatory statements.
The defamation suit states,
“By referring to the Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 9 as prostitutes, repeatedly, in a series of posts and articles, the Defendant No. 1 [Iyer-Mitra] has clearly launched a series of scathing and belligerent attacks against the Plaintiffs. As such, the Defendant No. 1 cannot be permitted to disseminate falsities, only with the oblique motive to gain cheap publicity and eyeballs,”
A written apology and damages of Rs.2 crore have been requested.
The journalists argue that they are young women media professionals and that Iyer-Mitra’s posts not only attack their reputation and dignity but have also caused them “enormous mental trauma, harassment, and embarrassment among peers, friends, and family.”
The suit asserts,
“The statements made by the Defendant No. 1 are per se defamatory. The content of the Defendant No. 1 is also a criminal offence and is liable to be removed from all media, including social media websites, and is an affront to free speech,”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
