Delhi High Court Declines Suo Motu Contempt Action Over Online Criticism of Saket Court Judge in Abhijit Iyer-Mitra Case

June 12, 2026 : The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against individuals who criticised a Saket Court judge on social media following an order that stayed the registration of an FIR against commentator Abhijit Iyer-Mitra.

The issue was raised before Justice Neena Bansal Krishna by Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria, appearing for Iyer-Mitra. Billimoria informed the Court that the Sessions Judge who granted interim relief to Iyer-Mitra had become the target of coordinated trolling and derogatory comments on social media platforms after passing the order.

According to the submissions, several online users posted remarks attacking both the judge and the judiciary, using expressions such as “pathetic judge” and “rotten institution.” Billimoria argued that although a June 9 report accurately reproduced the contents of the Sessions Court’s order, the observations were later taken out of context and used to launch a campaign against the judge. He further alleged that individuals linked to the complainants appeared to have fuelled the criticism.

After considering the matter, Justice Krishna declined to invoke the Court’s suo motu contempt jurisdiction. The Court observed that criticism of judicial decisions and judges on social media has become increasingly common and that not every adverse comment warrants contempt proceedings.

The Court noted that expressions of dissatisfaction with judicial orders are frequently encountered and cautioned that taking cognisance of every critical remark against judges would create an unmanageable situation. It further stated that if the concerned judicial officer believed the matter warranted action, he could make a formal reference for contempt proceedings, which would then be considered in accordance with law.

Justice Krishna also observed that initiating contempt proceedings and later finding no case for action could itself have negative institutional consequences. The Court clarified that all remedies available under contempt law remained open and could be pursued through appropriate legal channels.

The controversy stems from a June 9 order of Additional Sessions Judge Purshotam Pathak, who stayed a Magistrate’s direction to register an FIR against Iyer-Mitra. While granting interim protection, the Sessions Court observed that the disputed statements appeared in the form of a shayari and did not specifically identify any individual. The Court held that a detailed assessment of the language and context would require a full hearing of the revision petition.

The dispute originated from a complaint filed by journalist Manisha Pande and six other journalists associated with Newslaundry. They alleged that Iyer-Mitra repeatedly referred to them as “prostitutes” through social media posts and published articles. On April 22, a Magistrate’s Court directed registration of an FIR, finding that the allegations disclosed cognisable offences under Sections 75 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to sexual harassment and insulting the modesty of a woman.

Iyer-Mitra challenged the order before the Sessions Court, which initially stayed the FIR registration. Although the Delhi High Court later set aside that stay order for lack of adequate reasoning, it directed the Sessions Court to reconsider the matter. Following a fresh hearing, the Sessions Judge issued a detailed order continuing the interim stay.

The Delhi High Court has now declined to initiate contempt proceedings over the online criticism directed at the Sessions Judge, while leaving open all statutory remedies available under contempt law.