The Delhi High Court has issued summons to right-wing commentator Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, along with media platform The Pamphlet, legal news outlet Law Beat, and social media accounts The Jaipur Dialogues and The Sunday Guardian, in response to a lawsuit by Cockroach Janta Party spokesperson Saurav Das, Bar and Bench reported. Das’s suit accuses the named parties of publishing his home address and other personal details online.

Justice Sachin Datta, hearing the matter on Monday, also issued notice on Das’s application seeking an interim injunction, and listed the case for further hearing after two weeks, according to the report.

During the proceedings, the court was informed that the tweets that had disclosed Das’s address had since been taken down. The bench, according to the report, asked, “Who is appearing for X? These links have been taken down? These links are no longer active?” Counsel representing X confirmed this. The case will next come up on September 14.

Das is seeking damages exceeding Rs 2 crore for what he describes as a violation of his privacy. He has also asked for permanent injunctions barring Iyer-Mitra, The Pamphlet, Law Beat, The Jaipur Dialogues, and The Sunday Guardian from publishing, sharing, or otherwise revealing his residential address, along with orders directing them to take down and block access to any videos or posts containing that information. Separately, he has sought directions requiring X Corp and Google to remove the offending content and prevent it from being shared further.

According to Das’s petition, he has been renting a ground-floor room at a property in Greater Kailash-I since early 2025. He alleges that individuals representing The Pamphlet entered the shared residential premises without permission, filmed its interior, and posted the footage on X on August 5. That video is said to have crossed 2.1 million views and was posted again on August 10.

According to the report, the suit further alleges that Iyer-Mitra revealed Das’s address during an appearance on a Law Beat programme, in the course of which he named Das’s neighbour and misstated the monthly rent as roughly Rs 7 lakh. Das says Iyer-Mitra went on to publish several more posts containing this information. Das states that he filed a police complaint on August 5 and warned the defendants about the security risks involved, but that the disclosures did not stop.

Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, representing Das, told the court that individuals from The Pamphlet had visited the property and posted a video, which Iyer-Mitra then reposted. Sibal added that although X had already removed the videos, that removal ought to be made permanent.

According to the report, the bench asked Sibal what legal basis the suit rested on: “You have filed this based on what? Right to privacy?” Sibal responded by pointing to settled law and Press Council of India norms on the subject. The bench interjected, noting, “You refer to three things, they are in different compartments.”

Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria, appearing for Iyer-Mitra, countered by invoking the Puttaswamy judgment, according to the report. “Puttaswamy (judgment) says information such as residential address, date of birth etc, there is no privacy right.” In response, Justice Datta pointed to the Supreme Court’s 1994 ruling in R Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu, noting that it contains a specific paragraph addressing this very issue.

The court ultimately issued summons to the defendants, directed them to file their replies within 10 days, and posted the matter for further hearing on September 14.

Your support keeps news free. Get a 6-month subscription at Rs 1947. Or gift it to your friends or relatives.