In a significant legal development, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday set aside a sessions court order that had stayed the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against political commentator Abhijit Iyer Mitra. The FIR pertains to allegations that Mitra made abusive and sexually-coloured remarks against women journalists associated with the online media outlet Newslaundry.
Justice Girish Kathpalia, while presiding over the matter, sharply criticized the sessions court’s decision to issue a stay without outlining its rationale, remarking, “This kind of stay does not convince.” The High Court has now remanded the dispute back to the sessions court, directing it to rehear both sides and pass a reasoned order within a strict four-week timeline.
Background of the Case
The legal battle originated from a complaint filed by Manisha Pande, the Editorial Director of Newslaundry. Pande approached a magisterial court seeking criminal registration against Mitra for a series of highly derogatory social media posts targeting her and eight other women journalists.
Key evidence placed on record included:
- A tweet dated February 8, 2025, in which Mitra allegedly made sexually abusive remarks against the women journalists.
- A subsequent tweet dated April 28, 2025, containing further alleged derogatory assertions.
On April 23, the magisterial court ruled that the online content prima facie qualified as sexually-coloured remarks intended to insult the modesty of the complainant. Finding that the posts disclosed cognizable 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 (BNS), the magisterial court directed the police to register an FIR.
Despite the clear judicial directive, the police failed to register the FIR even after 12 days. In the interim, Mitra moved a revision petition before the sessions court. On May 4, 2026, on the very first day of the hearing, the sessions court stayed the magisterial order directing the registration of the FIR until May 28, prompting Pande to challenge the stay before the Delhi High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
During the High Court hearing, senior counsel representing Manisha Pande strongly challenged the validity of the sessions court’s intervention. She contended that:
- The sessions court acted in an arbitrary manner by staying the registration of the FIR on the very first day of the hearing.
- The stay was granted without granting the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
- The local police had neglected their duty by failing to register the FIR within 12 days of the magisterial court’s explicit instructions.
In response, the senior counsel appearing for Abhijit Iyer Mitra, “in all fairness,” did not dispute the petitioner’s core procedural argument. Mitra’s counsel conceded that the stay order could not be legally sustained in the complete absence of recorded judicial reasons.
The Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Girish Kathpalia expressed strong disapproval of the sessions court’s methodology. He emphasized that judicial orders, especially those staying directions for registering criminal cases in matters of public interest, must be backed by transparent, logical reasoning.
An unreasoned, arbitrary stay on the very first day of a revision petition does not hold legal weight or convince the higher judiciary, the court observed. Given the consensus from both sides that the lack of reasons made the May 4 order unsustainable, the High Court intervened to correct the procedural bypass.
The Decision
With the explicit consent of both parties, the Delhi High Court disposed of the petition by setting aside the sessions court’s impugned stay order dated May 4, 2026.
Remanding the matter back to the revisional court, the High Court ordered:
- The sessions court must consider Mitra’s stay application afresh.
- A fully reasoned order must be passed only after giving both parties a fair and comprehensive hearing.
- The sessions court is requested to expedite the process and dispose of the stay application positively within four weeks.
The High Court directed both parties to appear before the sessions court on May 22, 2026, to resume the proceedings.
