The Delhi High Court on Friday (12 June) declined to initiate suo motu proceedings over alleged social media trolling directed at a Saket Court judge who had stayed an order directing registration of an FIR against political commentator Abhijit Iyer-Mitra.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that while the comments highlighted before the Court were unpleasant, they did not warrant the High Court exercising its extraordinary powers on its own motion.
Background of the Case
The issue was raised before the Court by Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria, who appeared for Iyer-Mitra before the trial court. He submitted that the judicial officer had faced coordinated criticism online after passing an order staying directions for registration of an FIR.
According to Billimoria, several social media users referred to the judge as a “pathetic judge” and described the judiciary as a “rotten institution.” He argued that certain online users had taken the judge's observations out of context and launched personal attacks against him.
The controversy arose from proceedings involving complaints by Newslaundry Editorial Director Manisha Pande and other journalists regarding social media posts made by Iyer-Mitra. A magistrate had earlier directed registration of an FIR, but that order was subsequently stayed by Additional Sessions Judge Purshotam Pathak.
Justice Krishna noted that criticism of judicial decisions is not uncommon and said courts must be cautious before invoking contempt or other extraordinary powers.
The Bench remarked,
“Pathetic judge? When lawyers stand in the corridor, is that not the general conversation? You don't get an order in your favour and say, who made this person a judge?”
The Court further stated that existing legal remedies remain available if a judicial officer believes comments have crossed permissible limits and interfere with the administration of justice.
“If the judge is concerned, he can make a reference for contempt,” the Court observed.
Refusing to take suo motu cognisance, Justice Krishna held that the matter did not require extraordinary intervention at this stage.
“I do not see a case where I can take suo motu cognisance today. Let something come before me. Suo motu, I am not inclined,” the Court said.
The Court added that any grievance regarding the comments could be pursued through appropriate contempt proceedings in accordance with law.
