Saket Court ordered FIR against Abhijit Iyer-Mitra over posts targeting Manisha Pande. Magistrate Bhanu Pratap Singh found prima facie offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provisions.
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.
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.
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.
Observations of the Court:
After analysing the content, the Court formed a prima facie view that the tweets constituted sexually coloured remarks intended to insult the modesty of the complainants, particularly as one of the posts specifically named Manisha Pande.
It held that such expressions, when directed at individuals in a public and digital forum, could attract penal consequences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court concluded that the allegations disclosed cognizable offences under Section 75(3) and Section 79 of the statute.
Upon examining these materials, the Court noted that the content appeared to have been posted from the accused’s account and treated the screenshots as prima facie evidence relevant to the complaint. The Court observed that the language used in the posts was explicitly sexual in nature and directed at the complainants in a manner that could undermine their dignity.
Recognizing that the alleged acts were committed in cyberspace, the Court emphasised the necessity of a proper police investigation. It directed that the investigating authorities verify the authenticity of the X account from which the posts originated and trace the electronic device or computer source used to publish the content. The Court also expressed dissatisfaction with the Action Taken Report submitted by the police officer, noting that it failed to adequately consider the tweets relied upon by the complainants.
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 light of these findings, the Court issued directions to the Station House Officer of Police Station Malviya Nagar to register a First Information Report against the accused under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
It further directed that a compliance report be filed by 04.05.2026. The application, filed under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was accordingly disposed of, and a copy of the order was directed to be forwarded to the concerned police station for necessary action.
Apart from the criminal proceedings, Newslaundry journalists had also approached the Delhi High Court with a defamation suit against Iyer-Mitra after he described the organisation as a “basti/brothel” and its journalists as “prostitutes”.
The journalists contended that the remarks amounted to a sustained campaign of vilification, resulting in severe mental trauma, harassment and embarrassment. They sought a permanent injunction, a written apology, and damages of Rs 2 crore.
On May 21, 2025, the High Court recorded Iyer-Mitra’s undertaking to delete certain posts within five hours. The defamation suit is still pending before the High Court.
Advocates Bani Dikshit and Udhav Khanna appeared for the Newslaundry journalists.
Case Title: MANISHA PANDE AND ORS. Vs. ABHIJIT IYER MITRA