'Not allowed in any civilised society': HC raps Abhijit Iyer Mitra for posts against women scribes

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday rapped commentator Abhijit Iyer Mitra for allegedly posting abusive remarks against nine women journalists of media house Newslaundry and asked him to remove the posts within five hours.

"Can you defend this? Such a language and words are not permissible in a civilised society. First you remove the posts then we will hear you," Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav told Mitra's counsel who defended the posts.

The court was hearing a plea by nine women journalists, who work with Newslaundry and sought an injunction, written apology and Rs 2 crore in damages from Mitra for his "defamatory, false, malicious and unsubstantiated allegations" published on X.

Advocates Bani Dikshit and Farman Ali, representing the plaintiffs, said Mitra used "derogatory terms and slurs" against the women journalists and their organisation.

Mitra's counsel then said the words used in the posts were inappropriate and the language was filthy and agreed to take down the posts.

The court was of a "prima facie view" that Mitra's posts were "not permissible in any civilised society" and considered to pass an interim order.

"However, the defendant's counsel Jai Anant Dehadrai contends that he has multiple points to be raised. He fairly concedes that the choice of words would have been avoided," the judge said.

The court took on record the assurance to remove the defamatory and abusive posts within the stipulated time.

"Let the defendant act accordingly. The arrangement is made with the consent of the defendant and the same is without prejudice to his rights and contentions," the court said and posted the hearing on May 26.

Justice Kaurav during the hearing also said a person who dared to use such "uncivilised language" in their posts should not be heard unless it was taken down.

"These kinds of languages, whatever may be the background..., can this kind of language against women in a civilised society be permissible? If the answer is no, then take down these posts immediately. We will hear you to whatever extent you may want but we will not hear you unless you take down these aspersions and this kind of language," the court said.

Mitra's counsel said not for a moment he could condone or defend some of the choice of the language used in the posts but said it was only "half the story" being conveyed to the court. He agreed with the court that the language used was filthy.

"Yes there is an element of abuse in the tweet but not even a single post is directly attributed to any of the plaintiffs individually. It was attributed to the organisation," the lawyer said.

The judge, however, said the posts were directly attributable to the plaintiffs and if they were not, what was the logic behind putting out those tweets.

"It is! It is! If you want that finding from me, let me give that finding right away that they are directly attributable to the plaintiffs. It may be attributable to many others...," Justice Kaurav said.

Dehadrai submitted Newslaundry was "not a news organisation as they claim to be" and said Mitra has also put out multiple tweets on its questionable sources of income.

"The remark made, please have that for a moment. It is in the context of the organisation referred to as a brothel. Because they take this income from questionable sources," he said.

The judge, however, said, "Whatever the questionable income, today something which is not under challenge can't be looked into...Does he understand the definition of brothel? Someone who takes financial assistance from questionable sources, can it be called a brothel?...You may have multiple grievances and fair comments against the plaintiff but choice of words are impermissible in a civilised society...Even going by any scratch of imagination, even if not attributable to anyone, such language on a public platform."

Opposing the civil lawsuit, Mitra's lawyer said the plaintiffs had the recourse to file a criminal complaint against his client if the language was filthy and abusive but the civil claim for damages and to shut him down wouldn't lie.

The court was not impressed and said, "We perhaps may direct for registration of a criminal case suo motu against the defendant and to take him into custody if eventually you fail to satisfy us. Thereafter we will deal with the civil case." The plaintiffs have said Mitra launched a series of scathing and belligerent attacks against them in his posts.

"As such, the defendant 1 (Mitra) cannot be permitted to disseminate falsities, only with the oblique motive to gain cheap publicity and eyeballs. As a matter of undisputed fact, the plaintiffs 1 to 9 have no personal relations with the defendant 1, which in any event, is not a ground for such a vicious attack on the plaintiffs, which reeks of abject misogyny," it said.

The plea said derogatory remarks were also made against the news organisation and its subscribers ranging from doctors, to lawyers, to judges, to teachers, to scientists, to architects, to engineers, amongst others.