A Delhi court on Monday stayed the operation of a magistrate’s order directing the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against political commentator Abhijit Iyer-Mitra for allegedly posting abusive and sexually coloured remarks against Newslaundry Editorial Director Manisha Pande and other women journalists on social media.
Additional Sessions Judge Purushottam Pathak of the Saket Courts stayed the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Bhanu Pratap Singh on April 23 and listed the matter for further hearing on May 28. It also issued notice to the Delhi Police and the complainants, seeking their response in the matter.
JMFC Singh had directed the registration of an FIR against Iyer-Mitra after prima facie finding that the content of the accused’s social media posts disclosed cognisable offences under Sections 75(3) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), relating to outraging the modesty of a woman and use of sexually explicit or derogatory language. The magistrate observed that the content on the microblogging site X (formerly called Twitter) appeared to intentionally insult the dignity of the complainant, who was specifically named in one of the posts.
The magistrate further held that a police investigation was necessary, particularly as the alleged offences were committed in cyberspace on the platform X. It noted that such an investigation would require verification of the user account, recovery of electronic devices, and forensic examination of digital evidence.
The JFMC ordered the Station House Officer of Malviya Nagar Police Station to file an Action Taken Report (ATR) regarding any prior complaints. After multiple opportunities, the ATR was eventually placed on record, and the matter was considered under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which empowers the magistrate to order a probe in appropriate cases.
Challenging this direction, Iyer-Mitra approached the Sessions Court, invoking revisional jurisdiction on the grounds that the magistrate’s order suffered from legal infirmities. Upon preliminary consideration, the Sessions Court deemed it appropriate to grant an interim stay, noting that failure to do so could render the revision petition infructuous.
The underlying dispute arose from a series of social media posts allegedly published by the accused, which, according to the complainants, were defamatory, derogatory, and intended to harm their dignity and professional reputation.
The complainants apprised the Sessions Court that parallel civil proceedings were pending before the Delhi High Court, wherein they have sought damages and other reliefs for defamation. In those proceedings, it was alleged that the posts contained false and malicious imputations, including the use of derogatory expressions targeting women employees of digital news platform Newslaundry. The High Court had earlier taken note of the nature of the content, following which the accused had reportedly taken down the posts, they added.
The Sessions Court clarified that the interim stay was procedural in nature and did not amount to any adjudication on the merits of the allegations, which remained subject to judicial determination in accordance with law.
