The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sharply criticised the social media posts of Abhijit Iyer-Mitra referring to Newslaundry women journalists as "prostitutes".
During the hearing, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav had a heated exchange with Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, appearing for Iyer-Mitra, after the lawyer sought to defend the posts in question.
At one point, the Court even warned that it would order the police to register a criminal case against Iyer-Mitra.
The Court ultimately ordered,
"While going through the nature of the language used by the defendant, the court was the prima facie opinion that it is not permissible in any civilised society and was about to pass interim order. However, Mr. Jai Anant Dehadrai appears for the defendants and he contends that he has points to raise, he however conceads choice of words could have been avoided. He says without prejudice to his contention the defendant will take down the abusive posts in 5 hours. It is taken on record and he shall act accordingly."
The Court was hearing the
Rs2 crore defamation suit filed by Newslaundry Executive Editor Manisha Pande and eight other women journalists against Iyer-Mitra for referring to them as ‘prostitutes’.
Appearing for the journalists, Advocate Bani Dixit said as she read out the tweets in question,
"Plaintiffs are journalists from all walks of life. These are defamatory articles outside the bounds of criticism. These are all working women."
The Court asked Dehadrai, "How can you defend this? Can you use this kind of language against women in a civilised society? We will not hear you unless you take down these posts. A person who uses such language should not be heard unless you take down the posts."
When Dehadrai said that the tweets in questions were not attributable to any person, Justice Kaurav shot back,
"They are attributable to plaintiffs. If its not attributable to any person, what is the point of putting it out?"
Dehadrai then said, "They are not a news organisation. I am a geopolitical expert. I have also put out tweets on their questionable sources of income."
However, the Court replied, "Whatever questionable income is, it is not under challenge. What we can look into is something that is under challenge. Going by any principle of law, such language in a public platform...Does he understand the definition of brothel? Can someone taking funds from questionable sources be called a brothel? You may have multiple questions, choice of words are impermissible."
Dehadrai then claimed that allowing the plaintiffs to have a civil claim will amount to shutting his client down. At this point, the Court warned,
"In that case, we as a constitutional court will suo motu direct registration of a criminal FIR against defendant."
When Dehadrai persisted, the Court said,
"Don't try to be oversmart! You are trying to be oversmart with the Court! For each observation, the Court is about to make you interject repeatedly."
Dehadrai then apologised to the Court, saying, "I was trying to make an argument hypothetically. I am sorry, I apologise. I was only making an argument my lords."
"If you want, I can show you the entire records, I tried to impress upon you that first you take down then I will hear you. Thereafter, you went on to say you are not being heard! I am accepting your submission that there is a criminal remedy available. Its an enlightening submission," the Court then said.
Dehadrai ultimately agreed to take down the posts within five hours. The matter will be heard next week.
The suit refers to eight tweets posted by Iyer-Mitra on X between February to May 2025 and has sought a direction to restrain him from making further defamatory posts.
“By referring to the Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 9 as prostitutes, repeatedly, in a series of posts and articles, the Defendant No. 1 [Iyer-Mitra] has clearly launched a series of scathing and belligerent attacks against the Plaintiffs. As such, the Defendant No. 1 cannot be permitted to disseminate falsities, only with the oblique motive to gain cheap publicity and eyeballs,” the defamation suit states.
A written apology and damages of 2 crore have also been sought.
The journalists have argued that they are young women media professionals and Iyer-Mitra’s post is not only an attack on their reputation and dignity, but has caused them “enormous mental trauma, harassment and embarrassment to them, amongst peers, friends and family”.
“The statements made by the Defendant No. 1 are per se defamatory. The content of the Defendant No. 1 is also a criminal offence, and is liable to be removed from all media including social media websites, and is an affront to free speech,” the suit states.
However, coverage under the "Bar & Bench" section is not intended to dramatise but to inform readers about significant legal developments, including those that raise broader questions about freedom of expression, judicial conduct, or institutional accountability. When courts respond swiftly to certain matters, it is part of our responsibility to report that, not as an endorsement, but as documentation of what unfolds.
Criticism is welcome and necessary in a democracy, but suggesting that access to the courts is based solely on political or ideological alignment risks oversimplifying a more complex legal landscape. Having said that, Moneylife remains committed to covering court actions factually, irrespective of who is involved.