Priya Ramani has built an imaginary story, made bald, vague pleas in defence: Geeta Luthra argues for MJ Akbar in Delhi Court [LIVE UPDATES]

The Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rouse Avenue is hearing former Union Minister MJ Akbar's criminal defamation case against the journalist, Priya Ramani for her allegations of sexual harassment against Akbar..Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ravindra Kumar Pandey is hearing the matter. Since a new judge has taken over, the parties are making final submissions afresh..After Senior Advocate Rebecca John concluded her submissions on behalf of Priya Ramani, Senior Advocate Geetha Luthra is making submissions for MJ Akbar..Read an account of the last hearing:.To say Priya Ramani had no legal remedy is ex facie untenable, IPC existed since 1860: Geeta Luthra argues for MJ Akbar [LIVE UPDATES].Live updates of the hearing today feature on this page. .Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra appears for MJ Akbar. Hearing begins..I read Akbar, Joyeeta Basu and Sunil Gujral's evidence: Senior Advocate Luthra begins.They have built an imaginary story in their defense. They say Vogue article has two parts and only the first part pertains to MJ Akbar. There is no credit, attribution in the second part: Luthra.This was a strange argument: Luthra.Ramani called Akbar media's biggest predator. When you cast an aspersion on someone, you have to show evidence and what investigation you have done: Luthra.After 25-30 years, you don't go to court .. you say there was no law. What is this law which was not present since 1860? Or when case was filed against Tarun Tejpal: Luthra.Remedy against misconduct at workplace was always available: Luthra.Luthra urges court to ask counsel for Priya Ramani to make submissions on 18th itself. .I'm opposing their right to rebut a rebuttal: Luthra .We'll consider after you conclude your arguments: Court.Luthra continues her submissions. .I've shown her contradictions. In notice, cross examination of Mr Akbar, she says it's the truth. Then she says there is no enquiry (with respect to premature tweet on Akbar's resignation). What is the sense of responsibility?: Luthra.She's saying as if it was a victory. But it's not victory, it's vindictiveness: Luthra.Shouldn't you have issued a corrigendum? So what if he resigned later? You called it truth at the time of notice: Luthra.This witness (Ramani) has no truth: Luthra .Luthra reads testimony of Veenu Sandal..Sandal was working from 1994 onwards and a lot of people are talking to her because of the kind of work she's doing.. she says not a "whisper all these years" against Mr Akbar: Luthra.Luthra continues to read..During all these years, some whisper would have come. Not an iota of doubt. She was doing astrology and tarot card reading. Some period seems to be overlapping: Luthra.We say in Hindi tukde tukde ho gaya.. it was in tatters: Luthra.Luthra says that it is proved that MJ Akbar had an incredible reputation..Was there dissemination? Yes. Sandal first read it in newspapers and then read the tweets: Luthra.Issue of publication, dissemination is clear. Lowering of reputation is also clear: Luthra.There is no doubt created in her cross-examination. There are a few suggestions which make out no case: Luthra.Suggestions do not prove your case: Luthra.Luthra continues to read..How can you call any of my witness a tutored witness? They are all natural witnesses: Luthra.I don't know the purpose of the question about Prerna Singh Bhindra, Shuma Raha etc. The case is not about them: Luthra.Except Ghazala Wahab, no-one has come to the witness box. Her allegations are wild and baseless: Luthra.It's a case of res ipsa loquitur. It is per se defamatory. There is no evidence, proof or verification. Irresponsible statements like calling someone a predator: Luthra.All about Ghazala is irrelevant to this lis. This is about Priya Ramani's allegations qua Mr MJ Akbar and her lack of proof: Luthra.Luthra reads Sandal's cross examination..Luthra argues against the questions put to Sandal during her cross examination. .This is not understandable: Luthra.These suggestions are not leading to anything: Luthra.In the course of duty, no witness deposes with regard to an ex-employer or colleague.. What benefit will she get?: Luthra.Because she benefitted, can't be an argument to call her a tutored witness: Luthra.Documents that are marked can't be read into evidence. Documents have to be proved: Luthra.I don't understand, what is the line of cross examination and the questions that are put? I wrote an article (on paranormal and supernatural). I'm not denying it. What does it have to do with MJ Akbar's reputation?: Luthra.Except suggestions there are no questions.. this thing about writing on ghosts. So what? You can't impeach someone's credibility on this ground: Luthra.She never heard of any blemish on Akbar's career and no questions were put to her on this aspect: Luthra.Not one part of the defense is put to the witness. No part about reputation or dissemination is put: Luthra.Just because you know the person professionally, doesn't make you an interested witness: Luthra.Luthra reads testimony of witness Tapan Chaki..His cross examination, you say all editors are exacting and not just MJ Akbar. So? We're talking about MJ Akbar. He stood out. He was exceptionally good. What's the cross examination to say others are also good? You are just being malicious and mean: Luthra .You yourself said he was the most exceptional: Luthra.Thousands of tweets, reporting in newspapers, magazines.. what could she have done more to damage my reputation? It came at no cost to her. The cost is to Mr MJ Akbar. For her, it was something said irresponsibly without food faith, due process: Luthra.This is not in good faith. I can say it is not in public interest: Luthra.Luthra reads Chaki's cross examination..Ask questions about what he has said. That Akbar has an impeccable reputation, that tweets harmed his reputation. Ask him about your defense..: Luthra.Can I take a five minute break?: Luthra .Sure. We will meet after five minutes: Judge.Hearing resumes. .I was reading the last portion of Chaki's cross examination: Luthra.Their defense was not put to even this witness: Luthra.There's no authenticity or proof.. : Luthra.Nobody can say that a professional colleague is a tutored witness. I haven't seen such a judgement. All these are bald,vague pleas: Luthra.Luthra reads Ramani's statement under Section 313, CrPC..To any of the complainant's witness, the defence is not put: Luthra.After this, I will come to Ramani's statement as her witness: Luthra.Luthra reads the testimony..This whole trivialising about Mr Akbar .. this is misplaced. She calls him a professional hero and famous: Luthra.There are some contradictions that come with regard to November, December.. I'm more concerned about which year: Luthra.The allegations purport to be from what I can make out.. she doesn't give the year.. I assume of 1993-94 or 95. What she says is in 2018. It is some 20-30 years and no contemporaneous proof comes before court: Luthra.Luthra continues to read..There is no evidence. Just vague averments: Luthra as she continues to read..All this has to be looked at from the viewpoint of authenticity.. no doubt has been cast that there was no such meeting: Luthra continues to read..Since this version has no authenticity and no material to support which is the onus cast upon her.. I'll show the judgements: Luthra.Nothing turns on it. They contradicted themselves. I've been showing contradictions of far greater nature: Luthra.They have a very onerous burden. The exercise has been not even establish even a whisper of proof. There is not one phone bill or CCTV: Luthra.Just completely false, bald, vague, unsubstantiated ..: Luthra.They've taken the defense of Res Gestae.. I said Nilofer line of argument was inadmissible. Their defense is unimaginary. Res Gestae has to be simultaneous: Luthra.Here, what is being said is later at night I called Nilofer. What you say to fabricate without producing landline.. neither a person in defense or complaint can show evidence after 30 years. But onus is on you: Luthra.Luthra refers to Kerala High Court judgement on onus of proof. .Luthra reads another judgement..I want to emphasize that onus is on her. She had not even started going there. She not established anything: Luthra.She has no basis to call him a predator: Luthra.When she says Dear male boss, the "you" is MJ Akbar: Luthra.Each and every aspect had to be proved: Luthra.Luthra reads the meaning of predator. .One who has committed many violent sexual acts: Luthra.I am shocked and scandalised. I'm completely devastated by this..that someone can call someone a predator with so much ease. Power of pen cannot be misused: Luthra.She justifies even now. She's a journalist. She should know the meaning of the word: Luthra.You cannot make an allegation without due process after 2-3 decades. Because you cannot prove it and it's false, you don't have the right to do it : Luthra.She got a job, she joined Delhi and then she wanted to join Mumbai office. Mr Akbar has no knowledge. He's a busy man: Luthra.I'm very amazed at the kind of research that goes into maligning someone.. you purport to pick something from some magazine..: Luthra.She doesn't examine any of the authors that she claims to have quoted: Luthra.Evidence act says that if something is written by someone and it is exhibited, the author can prove it after examination: Luthra .Luthra reads a judgement on this aspect..MyI objection to their documents is not misplaced as the authors of the documents were not examined: Luthra.All their documents are marked. They didn't produce any author. They are relying on my document to say that the content becomes true: Luthra.What I want to show was Ms Ramani maligned Mr Akbar and her tweets and allegations spread like wild fire: Luthra.Luthra reads a judgement..Luthra makes submissions in respect of Section 65B certificates.You haven't produced the author. What will you do with 65B?: Luthra.These aspects (second half of Vogue article) are based on inadmissible documents. No such questions were put to my witness. This is artificial splitting: Luthra.You can't say these things for the first time in defense before court. Did anyone understand the article in this manner?: Luthra.The discerning reader will not understand .. neither did Mr Akbar nor anyone of my witness realise it. Your witness didn't realise it. You didn't put it to my witness: Luthra.Anyone may say anything but the person who maligned Akbar and accused him of violent sexual act was Ms Priya Ramani: Luthra.Court proceeds to adjourn hearing for the day..I had the occasion to speak to Ms John. She's not available on 18th. I will make a request on 18th: Advocate Bhavook Chauhan (appearing for Ramani).We can give written submissions. There's no rebuttal to rebuttal: Luthra .Rebuttal has taken six dates: Chauhan.We'll decide a date once rebuttal arguments are complete: Judge.Hearing adjourned. Matter to be heard next on January 18.

Priya Ramani has built an imaginary story, made bald, vague pleas in defence: Geeta Luthra argues for MJ Akbar in Delhi Court [LIVE UPDATES]

Related Stories