Commentator Abhijit Iyer-Mitra on Wednesday said that he will take down social media posts in which he made allegedly sexually abusive remarks about women employees of digital news outlet Newslaundry, after being reprimanded by the Delhi High Court, Live Law reported.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav warned that he would order a first information report against Iyer-Mitra if he fails to remove the posts that were made between February and April.

The court said that it will not proceed with hearing Iyer-Mitra’s arguments in the matter unless the posts were taken down.

In response, Iyer-Mitra’s counsel said the posts would be removed within five hours.

During the hearing, the court asked verbally: “These kind of languages, whatever may be background, can these kind of language against women be permissible in society?”

The matter will be heard again next week.

The High Court was hearing a defamation suit filed by employees of Newslaundry seeking a public apology and Rs 2 crore in damages from Iyer-Mitra, a columnist at pro-Narendra Modi outlet OpIndia.

In their suit, they stated that Iyer-Mitra, through a series of social media posts, had “falsely and maliciously” targeted the news outlet’s women employees using derogatory language and slurs.

The complainants argued that Iyer-Mitra’s posts were made “knowingly and deliberately” with the intent to harm the dignity and reputation of the employees.

Iyer-Mitra’s comments are “not an aspect of free speech or journalistic criticism”, said the employees.

“They are sexist slurs aimed at humiliating women professionals,” they added. “They directly attack their dignity and right to work without fear or sexual harassment.”

Advocate Bani Dixit, representing the complainants, said that the plaintiffs were journalists from all walks of life, Bar and Bench reported.

“These are defamatory articles outside the bounds of criticism,” Dixit argued. “These are all working women.”

Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, appearing for Iyer-Mitra, argued that the posts were not attributable to any person, Bar and Bench reported.

The bench responded: “They are attributable to plaintiffs. If its not attributable to any person, what is the point of putting it out?”