NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday set aside an order staying the district court’s direction to register an FIR against political commentator Abhijit Iyer Mitra for allegedly making offensive remarks against women journalists at online media outlet Newslaundry, and remanded the case to the Sessions Court for fresh consideration.
While dealing with the petition filed by Newslaundry Managing Editor Manisha Pandey against the stay order passed by the Sessions Court, Justice Girish Kathpalia noted that the stay order had been passed without any reasons and observed that “this kind of stay is not convincing”.
The court asked the sessions court to consider Mitra’s stay application and issue a reasoned order within four weeks.
“With the consent of both parties, the petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order of the Court of Appeal dated May 4, 2026, and remanding the order to it with a direction to issue a reasoned order after hearing both parties.
“The learned Sessions Court is requested to dispose of the stay application as expeditiously but favorably as possible within four weeks,” the court ordered.
The parties were asked to appear before the court held on May 22.
On May 4, the sitting court stayed the registration of the FIR till May 28 on Mitra’s review petition.
The senior counsel who represented the petitioner maintained that the Sessions Court had issued the suspension order in an arbitrary manner on the first day of the hearing without giving them an opportunity to be heard.
It also said that the police failed to register an FIR against Mitra even 12 days after the district court directed it to do so.
The court noted that Mitra’s senior counsel, in all fairness, did not dispute that the stay order could not be sustained in the absence of reasons.
On April 23, the bench ordered an FIR to be lodged against Mitra on Pandey’s plea.
Mitra was accused of posting insulting tweets against Pandey and eight other female journalists.
Pandey recorded a screenshot of a tweet dated April 28, 2025, containing the alleged post, along with another tweet dated February 8, 2025, in which the accused allegedly made sexually offensive remarks against female journalists.
In its April 23 order, the district court said the content was classified as remarks of a sexual nature and prima facie appeared to be intended to insult the modesty of the complainant.
The court also held that the posts revealed cognizable offenses under Sections 75 and 79 of the BNS.
This article was generated from an automated news feed without any modifications to the text.
