The Delhi High Court refused to initiate suo motu proceedings over alleged online trolling of a Saket Court judge after interim protection was granted to Abhijit Iyer-Mitra in a case involving remarks against Newslaundry and its journalists.
The Delhi High Court declined to initiate suo motu proceedings over alleged online trolling and criticism directed at a Saket Court judge after he granted interim protection to Abhijit Iyer-Mitra in a matter concerning alleged objectionable remarks against Newslaundry and its journalists.
The issue was brought before Justice Neena Bansal Krishna by Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria, who appeared for Iyer-Mitra before the trial court. Billimoria informed the Court that the judge who passed the stay order had allegedly become the target of coordinated online attacks following the decision.
According to Billimoria, several social media users had posted comments such as “pathetic judge” and “rotten institution” after the judicial order was passed. He submitted that the criticism was not limited to disagreement with the order but amounted to personal attacks against the judge and the institution.
Billimoria pointed out that the media reports accurately reflected the court’s reasoning, including the observation that the allegedly objectionable tweet was in the nature of shayari and did not specifically identify any individual. However, according to Billimoria, several individuals allegedly misinterpreted the court’s observations and began targeting the judge on social media platforms.
Billimoria submitted before the Court,
“It is incited by insiders of the complainant [Newslaundry journalists],”
Observation of the Court
After hearing the submissions, Justice Krishna observed that the Court was not inclined to take suo motu cognisance of the matter at this stage. The Bench remarked that criticism and harsh comments against judges often appear in public discourse, particularly when litigants are dissatisfied with court orders, and said that every such instance may not justify extraordinary judicial intervention.
Justice Krishna observed:
“I still don’t find it of nature to be taken cognisance of. We are not finding that any extraordinary measures are required. It [one of the tweets] says “pathetic judge”. When you [lawyers] are standing in the corridor, is that not the general conversation? You don’t get an order in your favour, and you say who has made this person a judge. If we start taking cognisance of this… It’s not a case where I can take cognisance of this,”
The Court further clarified that if the concerned judge personally felt that the remarks amounted to contempt, an appropriate reference could be made and the matter could then be examined under the applicable law.
The Bench added,
“I don’t see a case where I can take suo motu cognisance today. If I take cognisance today and tomorrow, I say that nothing is made out, it will look even bad for the institution. Let something come before me. Suo motu, I am not inclined,”
The Court also informed Billimoria that he could explore remedies available under the contempt jurisdiction if he considered the comments to be serious enough to warrant action.
Background of the Dispute
The controversy arose after Additional Sessions Judge Purshotam Pathak of the Saket Court stayed an order passed by a magistrate directing registration of an FIR against Abhijit Iyer-Mitra.
The magistrate’s order was passed after journalists including Manisha Pande approached the court alleging that Iyer-Mitra had made offensive and sexually coloured remarks against them through posts and articles shared on social media platform X (formerly Twitter).
The complainants alleged that Iyer-Mitra repeatedly used derogatory language against the journalists, including references suggesting that they were involved in prostitution. They relied upon various posts, including one allegedly stating:
“door gaon mein Newslaundry naam ki basti thi jahan r****** sasti thi”.
The complainants also pointed to another post in which they alleged that Iyer-Mitra made objectionable remarks targeting Pande personally.
After considering the complaint, the magistrate court on April 22 directed the registration of an FIR against Iyer-Mitra. The court held that the allegations disclosed prima facie offences under Sections 75 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), relating to sexual harassment and words, gestures or acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman. The order directed registration of proceedings against Iyer-Mitra based on the allegations made by the complainants.
Iyer-Mitra challenged the magistrate’s direction before the Saket Court. On May 4, the Sessions Court stayed the operation of the FIR registration order after considering his revision petition. While granting interim relief, Additional Sessions Judge Purshotam Pathak observed that the words used by Iyer-Mitra appeared to be in the form of shayari and that no specific individual had been named in the statement.
The judge noted:
“The meticulous interpretation of the words and sentences used can only be done after hearing both the parties on merits on the revision petition. Even otherwise, no prejudice shall be caused to the respondent/complainant, in case, the operation of the impugned order is stayed till final disposal of the revision petition on merits,”
The Sessions Court also considered the action taken report filed by the Delhi Police, noting that while it appeared to support Iyer-Mitra’s position, it was not conclusive.
High Court Remand and Fresh Order
The complainants challenged the Sessions Court’s stay order before the Delhi High Court. The High Court subsequently set aside the Sessions Court’s earlier order, observing that it lacked sufficient reasoning. The matter was sent back to the Sessions Court with a direction to pass a fresh order after providing proper reasons.
Following the remand, the Sessions Court passed a fresh order explaining its reasoning. The controversy surrounding the case has since expanded beyond the original dispute, with allegations of online criticism against judicial officers becoming an additional issue before the High Court.
The latest order reflects the Court’s approach of balancing concerns regarding judicial dignity and criticism of judicial decisions while reserving contempt action for cases requiring extraordinary intervention.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE