Delhi HC Says Contempt Remedy Available Over Online Trolling Of Saket Judge In Abhijit Iyer-Mitra Case

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observations after Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria, who appeared for Iyer-Mitra before the trial court, brought to the Court's notice that the concerned judicial officer had allegedly been subjected to coordinated trolling on social media after passing the stay order.

Billimoria submitted that several online posts described the judge as a "pathetic judge" and referred to the judiciary as a "rotten institution" following the order. Referring to a June 9 media report on the proceedings, he argued that while the report itself accurately recorded the court's observations, certain users had taken those observations out of context and launched personal attacks against the judge online.

During the hearing, Justice Krishna noted that criticism of judicial orders, however unpleasant, is not uncommon. Drawing from everyday courtroom realities, she remarked that lawyers frequently express dissatisfaction with judicial decisions when orders do not go in their favour.

"Pathetic judge? When lawyers stand in the corridor, is that not the general conversation? You don't get an order in your favour and say, who made this person a judge?" the Court observed.

At the same time, the Bench emphasised that the legal framework already provides remedies where comments cross the line and amount to contempt of court.

"If the judge is concerned, he can make a reference for contempt. You can also take recourse to contempt law," Justice Krishna told Billimoria.

The Court clarified that it was not inclined to invoke its extraordinary suo motu jurisdiction at this stage, observing that it did not find the circumstances to warrant immediate intervention by the High Court on its own motion. "We are not finding that any extraordinary measures are required," the Bench said.

Justice Krishna further noted that if the concerned judicial officer believes the comments have undermined the dignity of the court or obstructed the administration of justice, the issue can be brought before the appropriate forum through established contempt proceedings.

"I don't see a case where I can take suo motu cognisance today. Let something come before me," the Court observed, indicating that the matter could still be examined through the proper legal process if a formal reference or contempt action is initiated.

The controversy stems from a recent order of a Saket Court judge staying directions for registration of an FIR against Iyer-Mitra over allegedly objectionable comments concerning news platform Newslaundry and its journalists. Following that order, social media discussions intensified, prompting concerns about personal attacks directed at the judicial officer who passed the stay order.

Notably, a plea was filed by Newslaundry Editorial Director Manisha Pande seeking registration of an FIR against commentator Abhijit Iyer Mitra over alleged abusive and sexually coloured remarks made on social media targeting her and other women employees of the media platform. The case pertains to a revision application filed by Pande challenging earlier proceedings relating to her request for registration of an FIR against Mitra.

On May 22, the Court had refused to urgently take up a plea filed by Pande. The matter was mentioned before Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Purshotam Pathak after the Delhi High Court on had 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.

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 had 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.

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Hearing Date: June 12, 2026