A Delhi court on Tuesday stayed a lower court's order directing the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against strategist and columnist Abhijit Iyer Mitra over his social media posts targeting journalists associated with the news portal Newslaundry.
Court's Decision
Additional Sessions Judge Purshotam Pathak, while hearing a revision petition filed by Mitra, allowed his plea seeking a stay on the April 22 order passed by a metropolitan magistrate. The magistrate had earlier directed the Delhi Police to register an FIR against Mitra for allegedly making derogatory and defamatory remarks against the journalists.
Arguments Presented
Mitra's counsel argued before the sessions court that the magistrate's order was passed without proper application of mind and without considering the material available on record. It was also contended that the complaint filed by the journalists was malicious and intended to harass Mitra.
On the other hand, the counsel representing the journalists opposed the stay, submitting that the magistrate had rightly found a prima facie case against Mitra. They argued that the posts were aimed at intimidating and silencing journalists through offensive language.
Procedural Lapses Cited
The sessions court observed that the magistrate had not followed the mandatory procedure under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which requires an inquiry or investigation before issuing process in certain cases. The court noted that the magistrate failed to record reasons for dispensing with such inquiry.
Therefore, the court stayed the operation of the magistrate's order until further hearing. The matter has been listed for further arguments on July 15, 2026.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a complaint filed by three Newslaundry journalists, who alleged that Mitra had made defamatory and threatening posts against them on social media platforms in 2025. The posts reportedly targeted the journalists' professional conduct and personal integrity.
Mitra, known for his controversial statements, has maintained that his posts were a form of legitimate criticism and protected under the right to free speech. He has denied any intent to defame or threaten the journalists.
The development comes amid ongoing debates about the limits of free speech and the legal remedies available to journalists facing online harassment. Legal experts have noted that the stay order highlights the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards before directing the registration of an FIR.
