The Saket Court, Delhi, has continued the stay on the registration of an FIR against political commentator Abhijit Iyer Mitra in a complaint filed by News Laundry Managing Editor Manisha Pande and others alleging that certain social media posts contained derogatory and sexually coloured remarks directed at her. The order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge Purshotam Pathak while hearing Mitra’s revision petition challenging a Magistrate’s order dated April 22, 2026, directing the SHO, Malviya Nagar, to register an FIR under Sections 75(3) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The case arose after the Magistrate directed registration of an FIR and sought a compliance report from the police. The revisionist challenged the order before the Sessions Court and obtained an interim stay on May 4, 2026. However, the complainant approached the Delhi High Court, contending that the stay order was unreasoned. By an order dated May 20, 2026, the High Court set aside the stay order on that limited ground and remanded the matter back to the Sessions Court for a fresh decision after hearing both sides, while clarifying that it had not examined the merits of the dispute.
Before the Sessions Court, Abhijit Mitra argued that the Magistrate had mechanically directed registration of an FIR despite the fact that the material relied upon by the complainants was already available and the identity of the author was not in dispute. He contended that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out and that registration of an FIR would prejudice his liberty, reputation and legal rights. It was further argued that if the FIR were registered before adjudication of the revision petition, the challenge itself would become infructuous.
The complainants, on the other hand, argued that the posts contained vilification, derogatory shayari and explicitly sexually coloured remarks targeting Pande. According to them, the language used amounted to a degrading attack on her dignity, integrity and sexual dignity. They maintained that the Magistrate’s order directing registration of an FIR was well reasoned and that a stay of such directions could be granted only in exceptional circumstances, which were absent in the present case.
After considering the submissions, the Court noted that the allegedly objectionable material was documentary in nature and already within the knowledge and possession of both sides. The Court also recorded that Mitra’s identity was well established and not in dispute. Significantly, the Court observed that the alleged derogatory expressions were in the form of shayari and that no individual had been specifically named in the material. The Court held that a detailed interpretation of the words and sentences used could only be undertaken after hearing both parties on the merits of the revision petition.
The Court further noted that the Action Taken Report filed by the police appeared inconclusive, observing that it simultaneously supported Mitra’s version while also containing insufficient details. It held that police assistance might be required to ascertain issues such as mens rea or motive, which could only be properly assessed after the parties had filed their responses and the revision petition was heard on merits.
Holding that no prejudice would be caused to the complainants if the operation of the Magistrate’s order remained stayed until final disposal of the revision petition, the Court concluded that the balance of convenience lay in favour of granting interim protection. The Court observed that there was merit in the revisionist’s contention that there was no immediate necessity to register an FIR without first considering his defence and explanation. Accordingly, the Court allowed the stay application and directed that the operation of the Magistrate’s order dated April 22, 2026 would remain stayed pending adjudication of the revision petition.
