The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to initiate contempt proceedings on its own over alleged online trolling of a sessions court judge for staying a magistrate’s order directing registration of an FIR against political commentator Abhijit Iyer Mitra.
Senior counsel Percival Billimoria, who appeared for Mitra before the additional sessions judge, mentioned the matter before a vacation bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and requested her to take suo motu cognisance.
After perusing the alleged objectionable content, Justice Krishna, however, stated that it was not a case for taking suo motu cognizance.
“It is not a case where I take cognisance. If a contempt is drawn by the judge, it will come to the high court. Let something come before us. Suo motu, I am not inclined,” Justice Bansal said.
Billimoria asserted that the judicial officer’s interim order was being taken “out of context” and several social media users were making derogatory remarks against him in a sub-judice matter, which could influence further proceedings.
Justice Krishna, however, observed that the remarks did not seem to be “targeted”, adding that such statements were even made in “corridors” after a party fails to get a favourable order.
“I am looking at what is it that we need to take care of. They are general remarks being made. They are not targeted. They may be criticism (but) how is it becoming derogatory,” the court explained.
“I don’t find it to be of such a nature that we need to take cognisance. I am not finding anything where extra measures are required,” it further said.
On June 9, the additional sessions judge stayed a magisterial court’s order directing registration of an FIR against Mitra over alleged derogatory remarks against women journalists associated with news portal Newslaundry.
In the order, the sessions court said, “The alleged derogatory words are in the form of shayari but no individual has been specifically named therein and the meticulous interpretation of the words and sentences used can only be done after hearing both the parties on merits on the revision petition.”
Iyer’s revision petition challenged the magistrate court’s direction to the Station Head Officer (SHO) of Malviya Nagar police station to register an FIR on a complaint filed by journalist Manisha Pande and others.
The magistrate had said a police investigation was required to verify the user account from which the tweets were allegedly published.
