Delhi HC asks Abhijit Iyer Mitra to respond to CJP spokesperson's privacy suit

The Delhi High Court on Monday sought responses from commentator Abhijit Iyer Mitra, X, Google and several law portals and media platforms on a plea filed by Cockroach Janta Party spokesperson Saurav Das, alleging that his residential details were made public.

Das, in his suit, has sought protection of his right to privacy, dignity and security, along with damages for the alleged violation of his privacy rights.

Justice Sachin Datta issued notices and summons to Iyer, X, Google and the other defendants on the suit and an interim injunction application. The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 14.


Also Read: ‘We will not back down’: CJP keeps pressure on Rajasthan government over alleged violent clash

The court also granted Das time to amend the memo of parties by impleading the correct party.

Das has sought permanent and mandatory injunctions restraining Iyer, X, Google and the other platforms from publishing, circulating or disclosing his residential details. He has also sought directions to remove and disable public access to videos and posts revealing the information.

The plea specifically sought directions to X and Google to take down the content.

During the hearing, the court was informed that X, formerly known as Twitter, had removed the tweets revealing Das' residential address.

Das said he has been living in a rented room in Greater Kailash since last year and alleged that the defendants had unlawfully discovered, recorded, published and repeatedly disseminated his residential address and other personal details, including information about his background, parents and sexuality.

He also alleged that some defendants trespassed into the shared residential premises, recorded its interiors and published the footage on X.

Relying on various social media videos, Das said his journalistic work, public-interest disclosures and political engagement had previously exposed him to violent threats and targeted hostility.

He argued that the repeated disclosure and amplification of his precise residential address posed a real and foreseeable risk of violence at and around his home.

(With PTI inputs)