Delhi HC pulls up Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, orders removal of ‘offensive’ posts

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, in a sharp rebuke on Wednesday, ordered commentator Abhijit Iyer-Mitra to take down a series of allegedly defamatory and abusive posts targeting nine women journalists from Newslaundry. 

The single-judge bench made it clear that Iyer-Mitra would not be heard in the civil defamation matter until the offensive content is removed, warning of possible suo motu criminal action in case of non-compliance.

The case arises from tweets in which Iyer-Mitra reportedly referred to the journalists as "prostitutes" and their organisation, Newslaundry, as a "brothel". The petitioners—including Newslaundry’s Executive Editor Manisha Pande—asserted that these remarks were not only defamatory but also sexually abusive, crossing the threshold of lawful expression.

Appearing for the journalists, Advocate Bani Dixit argued that such language was a direct attack on the professional dignity of the petitioners, who come from diverse backgrounds and have reputations to protect. She submitted that the terms used were grossly inappropriate and injurious to their personal and professional standing.

The court did not mince words in its response. “There is a limit for everything. If you are justifying this language, I am restraining you from being heard,” the judge said during the proceedings, as per Bar and Bench. The bench made it clear that continuation of such a stance could invite criminal consequences: “I will suo motu order registration of a criminal FIR against the defendant.”

Representing Iyer-Mitra, advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai attempted to argue that the tweets were general commentary on Newslaundry’s funding patterns and not aimed at any individual. However, the court rejected this position outright, stating that the language used was clearly referential to the petitioners. “If it’s not attributable to any person, what is the point of putting it out?” the judge asked. The court further questioned the use of the word “brothel” in any context involving a workplace.

When Dehadrai tried to argue that the plaintiffs should have resorted to criminal proceedings instead of a civil defamation suit, the bench warned against attempts to derail the matter. “In that case, we as a Constitutional court will suo motu direct registration of a criminal FIR,” the judge said, signalling a zero-tolerance approach.

After multiple exchanges, the court rebuked Dehadrai for being “oversmart” and repeated that Iyer-Mitra would not be allowed to argue unless the posts were removed. Eventually, the defence offered a partial concession. Without prejudice to the ongoing arguments, Dehadrai assured the court that the tweets would be taken down within five hours. The court accepted the undertaking and listed the matter for the next hearing on May 26, 2025.

This is not Iyer-Mitra’s first brush with the law over contentious social media remarks. In 2018, he was arrested by Odisha Police for alleged derogatory comments on the Konark Sun Temple, and was denied bail at the time.

With the court adopting a no-nonsense tone and linking non-removal of posts to potential criminal action, the case could serve as a reference point for how Indian courts weigh free speech against reputational harm, especially in the context of online gender-based abuse.

The proceedings will continue next week.