Do You Understand the Definition of 'Brothel'? Delhi HC Slams Abhijit Iyer Mitra Over Defamatory Tweets Against Newslaundry's Women Journalists

New Delhi- The Delhi High Court on Wednesday came down heavily on social commentator Abhijit Iyer-Mitra for his derogatory social media posts targeting women journalists from Newslaundry, referring to them as "prostitutes" and the organization as a "brothel." During a heated courtroom exchange, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav sharply criticized Iyer-Mitra’s counsel, Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, for attempting to defend the posts, even warning of potential criminal action against the defendant.

The defamation suit was filed by Manisha Pande and eight other women journalists from Newslaundry, who alleged that Iyer-Mitra’s posts were not only defamatory but also crossed the boundaries of acceptable criticism.

Advocate Bani Dixit, representing the plaintiffs, told the court, “The plaintiffs are journalists from diverse backgrounds, working diligently in their profession. These posts are defamatory and go beyond criticism. They target working women.” Reading out portions of the allegedly offensive tweets, Dixit noted that the language was so objectionable that she found it difficult to recite aloud.

Advocate Dixit informed the court that the tweets in question, numbering six to seven, were not only personal attacks but also an attempt to tarnish the reputation of Newslaundry and its journalists. “These posts are defamatory and aim to demean the profession of journalism,” she argued.

During the hearing, Advocate Dehadrai argued that the tweets in question—six or seven in total—were not directed at any specific individual but were comments on Newslaundry’s alleged questionable funding sources.

Justice Kaurav dismissed this defense, stating, " If its not attributable to any person what is the point of putting it out? Does he understand the definition of brothel? Can someone taking funds from questionable sources be called a brothel ? You may have multiple questions, choice of words are impermissible.

Dehadrai said the legal point is very interesting. to which the court said they would hear the legal point but the tweets have to be taken down.

The court grew increasingly frustrated with Dehadrai’s attempts to justify the language, with Justice Kaurav warning, “Don't try to be oversmart! You are trying to be oversmart with the court! For each observation, the court is about to make you interject repeatedly. If you continue to defend this language, as a constitutional court, we will suo moto direct the registration of a criminal FIR against your client. There is a limit to everything!” The judge further emphasized that such language is unacceptable in any civilized society.

When Dehadrai argued that the plaintiffs could pursue a criminal case and that a civil suit was merely an attempt to silence Iyer-Mitra, the court reiterated its stance, stating, “Remove the posts first, and then we will hear your arguments.”

After a prolonged exchange, Dehadrai apologized to the court, conceding that his client’s choice of words was inappropriate. He assured the court that Iyer-Mitra would take down the offending posts within five hours, a commitment the court recorded. Dehadrai expressed regret for his repeated interruptions, saying, “I was only making a hypothetical argument, my lords. I apologize.”

The court, in its order, noted, “The language used by the defendant is prima facie impermissible in any civilized society. While the defendant’s counsel sought to raise arguments, he conceded that the choice of words could have been avoided. The defendant shall remove the abusive posts within five hours, as submitted.” The case has been listed for further hearing on May 26.