The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to take suo motu cognisance of the trolling of a Saket Court judge who stayed the order for registration of FIR against Abhijit Iyer-Mitra for his alleged objectionable comments on Newslaundry and its journalists.
Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria, who was representing Iyer-Mitra in the trial court, appeared before Justice Neena Bansal Krishna today and stated that the judge is facing coordinated trolling.
Billimoria stated that comments like "pathetic judge" and "rotten institution" have been made after the judge passed the stay order.
Billimoria referred to a tweet by Bar & Bench on June 9, 2026, about the stay order.
The tweet reported the judge's observations that Iyer-Mitra's tweet was in the form of shayari, but no individual was named by him. Billimoria added that while the tweet was factual, several people took it out of context and started trolling the judge.
"It is incited by insiders of the complainant [Newslaundry journalists]," Billimoria said.
However, Justice Krishna said that she cannot take suo motu cognisance of the matter. The Bench said that comments like "pathetic judge" or "rotten institution" are made about the judges and judiciary on a routine basis and that it did not think that it was a case where extraordinary measures are required.
“I still don’t find it of nature to be taken cognisance of. We are not finding that any extraordinary measures are required. It [one of the tweets] says “pathetic judge”. When you [lawyers] are standing in the corridor, is that not the general conversation? You don’t get an order in your favour, and you say who has made this person a judge. If we start taking cognisance of this… It’s not a case where I can take cognisance of this,” Justice Krishna remarked.
The Court added that if the judge feels concerned, he can draw a reference of contempt, and it will be dealt with.
"I don’t see a case where I can take suo motu cognisance today. If I take cognisance today and tomorrow, I say that nothing is made out, it will look even bad for the institution. Let something come before me. Suo motu, I am not inclined," the Court added.
Further, the Bench told Billimoria that he can also take recourse to the contempt of court law.
...[one of the tweets] says “pathetic judge”. When you [lawyers] are standing in the corridor, is that not the general conversation? You don’t get an order in your favour, and you say who has made this person a judge.Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Purshotam Pathak of Saket court had on June 9, stayed the magistrate's order to register an FIR against Iyer-Mitra. In his stay order, Judge Pathak observed that the words used by Iyer-Mitra were in the form of shayari, but no individual was specifically named in it.
"The meticulous interpretation of the words and sentences used can only be done after hearing both the parties on merits on the revision petition. Even otherwise, no prejudice shall be caused to the respondent/complainant, in case, the operation of the impugned order is stayed till final disposal of the revision petition on merits," the sessions judge said.
It also noted that the action taken report filed by the Delhi Police claims to have supported the version of Iyer-Mitra but is also inconclusive.
Manisha Pande and six other journalists had approached the magistrate court stating that Iyer-Mitra referred to them as prostitutes repeatedly in a series of posts and articles on the social media platform X (Twitter).
They argued that in several tweets, Iyer-Mitra wrote that “door gaon mein Newslaundry naam ki basti thi jahan r****** sasti thi". In another tweet, he made objectionable remarks about Pande.
The magistrate court on April 22 ordered the registration of FIR and said that Iyer-Mitra made sexually coloured remarks against Pande and other journalists. It ordered registration of a case against Mitra for offences under Sections 75 (sexual harassment) and 79 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
However, the order was stayed by the Saket Court on May 4 after Iyer-Mitra filed a revision petition.
Pande and others challenged the order before the High Court, which set aside the sessions court order, noting that it was bereft of any reasons. The matter was remanded back to the sessions judge while asking him to pass a fresh, reasoned order.
The sessions judge then passed a fresh order furnishing reasons.