'Will Have To Justify His Act; If These Are Your Views Then Why Are You Before Us?': Delhi High Court To Abhijit Iyer Mitra

Questioning Abhijit Iyer Mitra about his act of retweeting a tweet that calls Indian judiciary "biased and unaccountable", the Delhi High Court on Tuesday said that even though he is entitled to hold such a view, he will have to "justify his own acts."

Justice Prateek Jalan was hearing a suit filed by Mitra, who is a research fellow at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, seeking restoration of his Twitter account and action against the micro-blogging site for "suspending" his account "without following the procedure prescribed by law".

The judge was referring to a retweet done by Mitra wherein an individual had written that "Indians are realizing that the judiciary is both biased and unaccountable."

As Advocate Raghav Awasthi representing Mitra told court that retweets are not endorsements and that he may be responsible for his views but not for the retweets, Justice Jalan said:

"He is entitled to hold this view. I'd like to hear from you that whether according to you…as I said, I'm very comfortable with the notion that there will be people who think this of our judiciary. I don't have any problem with that. But I'm wondering whether the judiciary should turn somersaults to grant equitable relief in favour of those persons?"

He added: "The injunction you're asking is on behalf of Mr. Iyer Mitra…Mr. Iyer Mitra will have to justify his own act….."

As the court quizzed Awasthi about Mitra's retweet, the counsel said that the tweet in question was not the subject matter of the suit. However, Justice Jalan said that since the same was annexed in the suit and his eyes had fallen on it, Mitra has to explain the same.

"I am wondering if these are your views then why are you before us?," the court said.

Recounting that Mitra had also filed a PIL regarding same-sex marriages, the court said that he seems to be a gentleman "who reposes some faith in the Indian judiciary."

"He seems to be a gentleman who reposes some faith in the judiciary of this country where it comes to asserting his own rights and claiming vindication of his own rights…then I would be quite interested in hearing, even if it is not subject matter of this suit…just for my general knowledge that what is the implication of retweeting a tweet of this nature and whether it has any consequence on his right to an equitable injunction in his favour. This is a document which he has placed on record, even if it is irrelevant," the court said.

As Awasthi said that it was a case about compliance of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 by Twitter and Mitra's freedom of speech and expression, the court said:

"It's also a case about rule of law, about integrity of judiciary.…. and about people having faith in the judicial system. Every person who comes to the court submits themselves to jurisdiction of that court. Sorry if that sounds very old fashioned but it's certainly the view that I take .. in modern times, I think it is much more important. You're entitled to have your views about our judiciary so long as they are bona fide and they are expressed in a manner that is respectful and not contumacious."

"But when you come to the court for an equitable relief then I'm also entitled to see whether the one who seeks equity does equity."

The matter will now be heard next on February 16.

Mitra's access to his Twitter account was blocked in July by the social media site in connection with a tweet he had posted in context of the bail order of Alt News Co Founder Mohd Zubair. Mitra had named a journalist who "furnished bail bond" for Zubair at the time of bail.

Iyer had initially posted a tweet containing private information. Subsequently, he had posted another tweet wherein he wrote, "reposting minus the 'private info'. I'm sure twitter will find some way of protecting its resident in-house jihadist his aiders abettors"

Soon, according to the suit, Twitter issued him a show cause notice and then "unilaterally" banned his access. On his appeal, Twitter confirmed that a violation "did take place" and refused to overturn its decision.

Mitra's suit therefore seeks "reinstatement" of his Twitter account.

Mitra has also sought a declaration to the effect that deletion of the tweet dated July 23 by Twitter and "consequent suspension" of his account was in violation of the IT Rules, 2021.

In the tweet, Mitra had also written: "…presiding judges son on NDTV, NDTV editor furnishes bail bond of "close friend."