Delhi High Court Rejects Suo Motu Action on Judge Trolling
On Friday, the Delhi High Court declined to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings concerning the online harassment faced by a Saket Court judge. This judge had previously stayed the order for registering an FIR against commentator Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, following allegations of objectionable remarks about the media outlet, Newslaundry, and its journalists.
Allegations of Coordinated Trolling
Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria, representing Iyer-Mitra at the trial court level, brought the issue before Justice Neena Bansal Krishna. Billimoria highlighted that the judge was subjected to orchestrated trolling, with disparaging remarks such as “pathetic judge” and “rotten institution” surfacing after the stay order was issued.
Billimoria referenced a tweet from Bar & Bench dated June 9, 2026, which reported that the judge observed Iyer-Mitra’s comments as shayari, noting no individuals were explicitly named. Despite the factual nature of the tweet, it was taken out of context by many, leading to the trolling, which Billimoria attributed to insiders at Newslaundry.
Court’s Rationale
Justice Krishna, however, refused to take suo motu cognizance, stating that derogatory comments about judges are unfortunately routine. She opined that the situation did not warrant extraordinary measures. “I still don’t find it of nature to be taken cognizance of. We are not finding that any extraordinary measures are required,” she remarked.
The court further advised that if the judge in question felt concerned, he could initiate contempt proceedings. Justice Krishna emphasized that initiating suo motu action without substantial cause could reflect poorly on the judiciary.
More Read
Background of the Case
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Purshotam Pathak of the Saket Court had previously stayed the magistrate’s directive to file an FIR against Iyer-Mitra. Judge Pathak noted that Iyer-Mitra’s words were styled as shayari and did not explicitly name any individuals. The Delhi Police’s action report supported Iyer-Mitra’s version but was deemed inconclusive.
Manisha Pande, alongside six other journalists, had approached the magistrate court, accusing Iyer-Mitra of referring to them with derogatory terms through social media posts on platform X (formerly Twitter). They cited tweets where Iyer-Mitra allegedly referred to Newslaundry journalists in a derogatory manner, including objectionable comments about Pande.
The magistrate court had initially ordered an FIR registration, citing Sections 75 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, related to sexual harassment and insulting the modesty of women. However, this order was stayed by the Saket Court after Iyer-Mitra’s revision petition. The journalists contested this before the High Court, which annulled the sessions court’s decision, demanding a reasoned order upon remand. Subsequently, the sessions judge issued a fresh order with reasons.
