The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (May 20, 2026) set aside an order staying a magisterial court direction to register an FIR against political commentator Abhijit Iyer Mitra for allegedly making abusive remarks against women journalists of online media outlet Newslaundry, and sent back the issue to the sessions court for fresh consideration.

While dealing with a petition by Newslaundry editorial director Manisha Pande against the stay order by the sessions court, Justice Girish Kathpalia noted that the stay order was passed without any reasons and remarked, "This kind of stay does not convince."

The court asked the sessions court to consider Mr. Mitra's stay application afresh and pass a reasoned order within four weeks.

"With the consent of both sides, the petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated May 4, 2026, of the revisional court and the matter is remanded to it with the direction to pass a reasoned order after hearing both parties.”

"Learned court of sessions is requested to dispose of the stay application as expeditiously as possible but positively within four weeks," the court ordered.

It asked the parties to appear before the sessions court on May 22.

On May 4, the sessions court stayed the registration of FIR till May 28 on Mr. Mitra's revision petition.

Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the sessions court passed the stay order in an arbitrary manner on the very first day of hearing without giving them an opportunity to be heard.

She also said the police failed to register the FIR against Mr. Mitra even after 12 days of the magisterial court's direction to do so.

The court noted that senior counsel for Mr. Mitra, in all fairness, did not dispute that the stay order could not be sustained in the absence of reasons.  

On April 23, the magisterial which directed the filing of an FIR against Mr. Mitra on Ms. Pande's plea.

Mr. Mitra has been accused of posting derogatory tweets against Ms. Pande and eight other women journalists.   Ms. Pande had placed on record 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 abusive remarks against the women journalists.

In the April 23 order, the magisterial court said that the content qualified as sexually-coloured remarks and prima facie appeared intended to insult the modesty of the complainant.

The court also held that the posts disclosed cognisable offences under BNS Sections 75 and 79.