BREAKING| Delhi Court Refuses Early Hearing In Plea Seeking FIR Against Abhijit Iyer Mitra Over Remarks Against Manisha Pande
Delhi court adjourned hearing in Newslaundry editor Manisha Pande’s plea seeking FIR against Abhijit Iyer Mitra over alleged abusive and sexually coloured remarks
A Delhi court on Friday refused to urgently take up a plea filed by Manisha Pande seeking registration of an FIR against Abhijit Iyer Mitra over alleged abusive and sexually coloured remarks directed at her and other women employees of Newslaundry on social media.
The matter was mentioned before Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Purshotam Pathak after the Delhi High Court on Wednesday set aside a sessions court order that had stayed a magistrate’s earlier direction to register an FIR against Mitra. Justice Girish Kathpalia remanded the matter back to the sessions court for fresh consideration.
During the hearing today, counsel appearing for Pande informed the court that an FIR had already been registered under Sections 75 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, relating to sexual harassment and outraging the modesty of a woman.
“This matter was heard by my Lords, notice was issued and stay was also given,” the counsel submitted while mentioning the case.
The court, however, questioned the purpose of the mentioning. “So, you’re mentioning for what?” the judge asked.
When the counsel responded that she merely wished to update the court, the Bench remarked, “No, I don’t want any update.”
Pande’s counsel then informed the court that the High Court had directed both parties to remain present before the sessions court at 10 AM.
The court responded sharply, noting that it was already past the scheduled time.
“It’s 10:07, not 10 AM… You can wait for your turn. Why have you been directed to appear when it is not listed today?” the judge observed.
The counsel subsequently took the court through the Delhi High Court’s order and requested that the matter be heard during the day itself.
The court declined the request, stating that there was no urgency warranting immediate hearing. “No. No. There is no urgency. When is the matter listed here before us?” the court asked.
Upon being informed that the matter was already listed on May 28, the court said, “Of this month. We’ll hear it on May 28 only then.”
The Bench further noted that the High Court had directed the matter to be decided within four weeks and that the existing listing adequately complied with that timeline. “The High Court has directed the matter to be decided in 4 weeks. And it is listed for hearing on May 28. We’ll hear it on that day only,” the court said.
Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai appeared on behalf of Mitra during the hearing. At one stage, Dehadrai alleged that arguments made before the High Court had suggested bias against the lower court. “My learned friends, before the High Court made such obnoxious arguments. They went and said that this court is biased and so on,” he submitted.
Senior Advocate Nandita Rao objected to the remarks and urged restraint in courtroom submissions. “Please don’t do this Mr. Dehadrai. Don’t make such submissions. Please maintain the decorum and dignity of counsels and the honourable court… the order speaks for itself,” Rao said.
The matter will now be heard on May 28.
The magistrate’s order that was stayed on May 4, had allowed registration of an FIR on Pande’s complaint, holding that Mitra’s posts on social media platform X amounted to “sexually coloured remarks” intended to insult the modesty of the complainant. The court had observed that the allegations disclosed cognizable offences under Sections 75(3) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. “On perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that the content posted by the accused qualifies as sexually coloured remarks and appears intended to insult the modesty of the complainant. 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 court noted, adding that Pande had been specifically named in at least one of the tweets.
The journalists have also approached the Delhi High Court with separate civil proceedings seeking damages of ₹2 crore, a public apology, and a permanent injunction against Iyer-Mitra, alleging a sustained campaign of defamation and harassment. In May 2025, the High Court had recorded Iyer-Mitra’s undertaking to delete certain posts, though the defamation suit remains pending.
Interestingly, in November 2025, Abhijit Iyer-Mitra had approached the Delhi High Court seeking dismissal of a defamation suit filed against him by nine women employees of digital news platform Newslaundry. The plaintiffs have alleged that Mitra posted defamatory content targeting them on the social media platform X. Mitra had moved the Court under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint at the preliminary stage. He has also filed an accompanying application seeking condonation of delay in filing the plea.
On September 10, 2025, the High Court had orally remarked that the recent tweets by Abhijit Iyer-Mitra were not defamatory while hearing a fresh petition filed by Newslaundry’s Managing Editor Manisha Pande and other women journalists.
Bench: Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Purushottam Pathak
Hearing Date: May 22, 2026