The Delhi High Court on Wednesday admonished commentator Abhijit Iyer Mitra for his “defamatory and abusive” posts targeting 9 women journalists associated with Newslaundry.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav delivered a scathing reprimand, emphasizing that “such language and words are not permissible in a civilised society.” The court directed Mitra to remove the contentious social media content within five hours, declaring, “First, you remove the posts, then we will hear you.”
The Case
The nine women journalists approached the High Court seeking a permanent injunction against Mitra and compensation amounting to Rs 2 crore. In their petition, they alleged that Mitra’s posts on X contained “defamatory, false, malicious and unsubstantiated allegations” not only against them personally but also against their employer, Newslaundry. The petition detailed instances where Mitra employed “derogatory terms and slurs” to attack both the individual journalists and the organisation they represent.
Defendant’s Response
Faced with the court’s strong words, Mitra’s counsel conceded that the language used in the posts was inappropriate. Acknowledging the gravity of the allegations, the defence counsel agreed to take down the offending material in compliance with the court’s directive. This agreement effectively forestalled any immediate further argument on the substance of the case, pending removal of the posts.
Court’s Interim Order
Highlighting the urgent nature of the matter, Justice Kaurav set a tight deadline—five hours—for Mitra to delete the posts. Only after the removal would the court allow a fuller hearing on the legal issues raised. This swift intervention underscores the judiciary’s sensitivity to online harassment and the potential harm of unchecked defamatory speech.
Next Hearing Scheduled
With the posts slated for prompt deletion, the Delhi High Court has listed the matter for further hearing on May 26, 2025. At that time, both parties will have the opportunity to present detailed arguments: the journalists will seek to demonstrate the harm caused by Mitra’s statements and justify their demand for Rs 2 crore in damages, while Mitra will have a chance to defend the core of his commentary once the objectionable language has been excised.
This case signals a growing judicial readiness to regulate social media discourse where it crosses into defamation and harassment. By imposing immediate content removal alongside financial penalties, the court aims to strike a balance between free expression and protection of reputations, especially for individuals vulnerable to targeted online attacks.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decisive action sends a clear message: abusive and defamatory social media content will not be tolerated.
As the hearing reconvenes on May 26, all eyes will be on how effectively the court can navigate the tension between robust commentary and respect for civil discourse.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
