The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings over social media posts and online criticism directed at a Saket Court judge who had stayed an order directing registration of an FIR against commentator Abhijit Iyer-Mitra in a case concerning alleged objectionable remarks against journalists associated with Newslaundry.
The issue was raised before the single-judge Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna by Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria, who represented Iyer-Mitra before the trial court. Billimoria informed the Court that the Sessions judge who passed the stay order had been subjected to coordinated trolling on social media following the judicial order.
Referring to comments posted online after the stay order, Billimoria submitted that several users had made derogatory remarks against the judge and the judiciary, including descriptions such as a pathetic judge and a rotten institution. He further referred to a social media post published on June 9 reporting the contents of the stay order.
According to the submissions, the report accurately reproduced the Sessions Court’s observations that the impugned post by Iyer-Mitra was in the nature of a shayari and did not specifically name any individual. However, it was argued that the contents of the order were subsequently taken out of context and used to target the judge through online criticism. Billimoria further alleged that the campaign appeared to have been instigated by persons associated with the complainants.
After hearing the submissions, Justice Krishna declined to exercise suo motu contempt jurisdiction. The Court observed that criticism of judges and judicial institutions on social media had become a recurring phenomenon and that the remarks brought to its notice did not warrant the invocation of extraordinary contempt powers at this stage.
The Court noted that expressions of dissatisfaction with judicial orders, including adverse comments about judges, were commonly encountered and that not every such statement justified contempt proceedings. It observed that if courts were to take cognisance of every critical remark directed at judges, it would lead to an unworkable situation.
The Bench further stated that if the concerned judicial officer considered the matter serious enough to warrant action, he could make a reference for contempt proceedings, which would then be examined in accordance with law. The Court added that it was not inclined to initiate suo motu proceedings on the basis of the material presently placed before it.
It also observed that initiating contempt action and subsequently finding no case made out could itself have adverse institutional consequences. Justice Krishna further informed Billimoria that remedies available under the law of contempt remained open and could be invoked through appropriate legal procedures.
The controversy arose from an order passed by Additional Sessions Judge Purshotam Pathak of the Saket Court on June 9, staying a Magistrate’s direction to register an FIR against Iyer-Mitra. While granting interim protection, the Sessions Court observed that the disputed expressions used by Iyer-Mitra were in the form of shayari and that no individual had been specifically named.
The Court held that a detailed examination of the language and context would require a full hearing on the revision petition and that no prejudice would be caused to the complainants if the operation of the Magistrate’s order remained stayed until final adjudication.
The Sessions Court also took note of an Action Taken Report filed by the Delhi Police, observing that while it appeared to support Iyer-Mitra’s version, its findings were inconclusive.
The underlying dispute originated from a complaint filed by journalist Manisha Pande and six other journalists associated with Newslaundry. They alleged that Iyer-Mitra had repeatedly referred to them as prostitutes through a series of social media posts and articles published on X, formerly Twitter.
According to the complainants, one of the posts referred to a settlement named Newslaundry and contained derogatory and sexually suggestive language directed at women journalists. The complaint further alleged that separate objectionable remarks had also been made against Pande.
On April 22, a Magistrate’s Court directed registration of an FIR against Iyer-Mitra, holding that the allegations disclosed cognisable offences under Sections 75 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to sexual harassment and acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
Following the order, Iyer-Mitra approached the Sessions Court by filing a revision petition. The Sessions Court initially stayed the operation of the FIR registration order on May 4.
The complainants subsequently challenged that stay order before the Delhi High Court. The High Court set aside the order on the ground that it lacked adequate reasoning and remanded the matter to the Sessions Court with a direction to pass a fresh and reasoned order. Pursuant to that direction, the Sessions Judge reconsidered the matter and issued a detailed order furnishing reasons for continuing the interim stay.
The High Court declined to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings over the online criticism directed at the Sessions Judge, while leaving open the statutory remedies available under contempt law.
The post Delhi High Court declines contempt action over online criticism of judge in Abhijit Iyer-Mitra case appeared first on India Legal.