Delhi court granted interim relief to Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, staying FIR order over remarks against Manisha Pande. Purushottam Pathak at Saket Court said protection continues till next hearing.
A Delhi Additional Sessions court granted interim protection to Abhijit Iyer-Mitra by temporarily halting an earlier directive that had ordered the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against him for allegedly making objectionable social media comments targeting Manisha Pande of Newslaundry and other journalists. The stay was issued by Additional Sessions Judge Purushottam Pathak at the Saket Court after Iyer-Mitra filed a revision petition challenging the magistrate’s order.
In its ruling, the court clarified that the interim relief would continue until the next date of hearing.
The court said,
“An applicant has also been filed seeking a stay of the impugned order dated 22 April 2026. The order is stayed till the next date of hearing,”
The court observed that refusing interim protection at this stage could make the revision petition effectively meaningless. On that basis, it stayed the magistrate’s order. The court also issued notices to the Delhi Police and the concerned journalists, calling for their replies before the next hearing.
The matter has been scheduled for further consideration on May 28.
Arguments before the Additional Sessions Judge
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria, along with advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, appearing for Iyer-Mitra, argued that the dispute must be viewed in a wider context, including earlier exchanges between their client and Newslaundry. They claimed that the remarks at the centre of the case were made in response to what they described as Newslaundry’s alleged defence of a sensitive issue.
The defence also brought to the court certain cartoons published by the platform some of which, they said, depicted Prime Minister Narendra Modi and author-scientist Anand Ranganathan to argue that the media platform’s standards are inconsistent. “They have one set of rules for themselves and another for others. They use the filthiest sexually coloured commentary,” Iyer-Mitra’s lawyers submitted.
Advocate Bani Dikshit, representing the journalists linked to Newslaundry, opposed the application for interim relief. She argued that Iyer-Mitra approached the sessions court after an undue delay, noting that the revision petition was filed almost ten days after the magistrate’s order by which time the matter had already been listed for compliance.
Dikshit further contended that the defence was trying to mislead the court and referred to earlier observations reportedly made by the Delhi High Court, alleging that those remarks indicated an FIR should be registered in the matter.
Earlier Magistrate Court Order:
Earlier the Saket Court, Delhi ordered the registration of a first information report (FIR) against Abhijit Iyer-Mitra over objectionable posts on social media targeting Newslaundry’s Manisha Pande and other journalists. The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Bhanu Pratap Singh in its ruling, said that Iyer-Mitra made sexually coloured remarks against Pande and other journalists, which were prima facie intended to insult Pande’s modesty. The Court also noted that Pande was named in one of the tweets.
After examining the material on record, the Court formed a prima facie opinion that the tweets in question contained sexually coloured remarks aimed at insulting the modesty of the complainants, particularly since one of the posts explicitly referred to Manisha Pande. It held that such content, when circulated in a public digital space, could attract penal provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, noting that the allegations disclosed cognizable offences under Sections 75(3) and 79.
The Court observed:
“Therefore, on perusal of the application and the material placed on record by the complainant, this Court is of the view that the content of the tweets posted by the accused on “X” platform discloses commission of cognizable offences under section 75(3) and 79 of BNS,” the order said.
The Court further observed that the posts appeared to have originated from the accused’s account and treated the screenshots as prima facie evidence. It emphasised that the language used was explicitly sexual and capable of undermining the dignity of the complainants. Considering that the alleged acts occurred in cyberspace, the Court underscored the need for a proper investigation to verify the account and trace the device used. It also found the police’s Action Taken Report inadequate for failing to consider the relevant tweets.
The Court recorded:
“This Court is of the view that police investigation is necessary as the offence has been committed in cyber space on platform “X”. Therefore, police investigation is necessary to verify the user account on platform “X” from which the said tweets were published. Further police investigation is also necessary to trace and recover the computer source/electronic device from which the said tweets were published. This Court is also of the view that the Action Taken Report which was filed by PSI Ombir in the present case is not satisfactory as the above stated tweets were not considered in the report.”
In view of these findings, the Court directed the Station House Officer of Police Station Malviya Nagar to register an FIR against the accused under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Factual Backgrounds:
A complaint was instituted by journalist Manisha Pande on behalf of herself and five other complainants, all of whom are media professionals associated with Newslaundry. The application, supported by an affidavit, was filed before the competent court seeking action against an individual accused of posting derogatory and sexually offensive content on the social media platform X. The grievance arose in the backdrop of increasing concerns over online harassment and abuse directed at journalists, particularly women, in digital spaces.
The complainants alleged that the accused, operating through the handle @Iyervval, had repeatedly targeted them with abusive and defamatory remarks. It was specifically contended that the accused had referred to the complainants as prostitutes in multiple posts and articles, thereby lowering their dignity and professional standing.
Among the tweets cited was a particularly offensive statement:
“door gaon mein Newslaundry naam ki basti thi jahan ra****an sasti thi”.
The complainants also relied on another post in which the accused allegedly remarked:
“Manisha looks(and talks) like she just had a major rectal prolapse”,
This was described as both degrading and personally targeted.
In support of their allegations, the complainants placed on record screenshots of the impugned tweets dated 28.04.2025 and 08.02.2025.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE