Litigation News

Rebecca John concludes submissions on behalf of Priya Ramani in MJ Akbar defamation case before Delhi Court [LIVE UPDATES]

Recently-appointed Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ravindra Kumar Pandey is hearing the matter.
MJ Akbar v. Priya Ramani - Live Updates
MJ Akbar v. Priya Ramani - Live Updates

The Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rouse Avenue is hearing former Union Minister MJ Akbar's criminal defamation case against journalist, Priya Ramani for her allegations of sexual harassment against Akbar.

Recently-appointed Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ravindra Kumar Pandey is hearing the matter. Since a new judge has taken over, parties are making final submissions afresh.

At previous hearings, Senior Advocate Rebecca John, arguing for Priya Ramani, asserted that MJ Akbar was shying away from the incident of the hotel room as narrated by Ramani in her Vogue article and testimony.

Read an account of the previous hearing here:

Also Read
Priya Ramani's disclosure requires celebration, not defamation: Rebecca John argues before Delhi Court in MJ Akbar defamation case [LIVE UPDATES]

Real-time updates from the hearing today feature on this page.

Hearing begins.

Senior Advocate Rebecca John for Priya Ramani: I'll finish my arguments today.

I've argued on reputation and burden of proof on accused: John

I will deal with three elements. That Akbar has not come with clean hands. I'll answer the objections. And I'll make a final statement: John

John asks the court to see the complaint by MJ Akbar

John reads the complaint.

In the entire complaint, Akbar refers to the tweets and articles by Priya Ramani: John

When a person tries to establish defamation on the basis of sexual harassment allegations, was it not incumbent to make a fair disclosure about the fact that as many as 15 other women: John adds

These women did not know each other. An individual who a senior editor and a Minister at that time, was there no obligation on him to state that there were other allegations against him, that Priya Ramani was not an isolated incident: John

It seems that apart from Ramani, nobody else had made any allegations against Akbar. By then Ghazala Wahab had written about her experience. At 15 women had spoken up on Twitter: John

While a lot of onus is put on me for being fair.. shouldn't the complainant bear the same responsibility. He should have said that other women have made allegations which are also false: John

Not having mentioned such serious allegations and singling out Priya Ramani, Akbar is guilty of concealing material particulars: John

A litigant must approach the court with clean hands : John

John refers to a judgement.

No doubt it is not a case of complainant concealing previous conviction. But he should have disclosed that he was held guilty of contempt by Delhi High Court: John

You are trying to gain an unfair advantage over the other side. The failure of Mr Akbar in mentioning the allegations by other women, and pretending that only Ramani's statement defamed him... Mr Akbar has not come to court with clean hands and failed a fraud on the court: John

John begins to deal with the objections raised on her evidence by the complainant side.

I asked questions on Akbar's political career with the Congress party because in his testimony, Akbar speaks of his association with BJP: John

It is my right to ask. The relevance is not as per the complainant: John as she reads Indian Evidence Act on lawful questions

I have right to ask questions to discover who his, shake his credit by injuring his character: John

I have right to ask these questions. These are meaningless objections without any legal basis: John

John moves on to other objections.

When I put up the question pertaining to the incident alleged by Ramani, they object to it as "having denied the meeting": John

Then deny it. But I have to ask these questions to prove my truth: John

When I question him on the Vogue article, objections were raised: John

These were not irrelevant questions. These questions have the effect of shaking the structure of the case against me: John

All questions were admissible under the scope of the Indian Evidence Act: John

All my 65B certificates were objected to: John

John refers to a Supreme Court judgement to in support of her Section 65B certificates.

It's a latest judgment by Justice Nariman.. : John reads the judgement.

I've fulfilled all conditions laid down in law: John

Section 65B relates to secondary evidence. I actually do not have to give certificate of I'm producing the original record: John

Supreme Court says that when I'm producing the mobile or the laptop, I need not give the certificate. I showed my phone to the court. But I still filed the certificate out of abundant caution: John

John continues to read the judgment.

I was asked if I had the phone and I showed the message from Nilofer to the presiding judge: John

John finishes reading the judgment.

John shows from the record that the message sent from Nilofer to Ramani was seen by the then-judge.

Section 65 B certificate is redundant for this piece of evidence: John

When Nilofer came to court as a defence witness, the message was offered to be shown once again. The phones are still available today: John

This is proof of the highest order: John

The electronic record was the messages. Phones are in perfect running condition: John

John urges the court to come back to the Supreme Court judgement for a 'slightly different point'.

John refers to directions on saving of CDRs for the duration of the year.

Ramani and Nilofer were asked to produce call records from 1993.. here the Supreme Court is passing the direction on account of CDRs not being available after one year: John

Ramani and Nilofer were asked to produce call records from 1993.. here the Supreme Court is passing the direction on account of CDRs not being available after one year: John

No doubt these directions relate to Internet Providers.. the court may keep this in mind while dealing with their insistence on call records from 1993: John

We will continue after five minutes: Court

I'll make a conscience statement now. Section 499 IPC defamation has three ingredients. Publication of imputation intension to harm and reputation of such order: John

Exceptions say that it is not defamation to impute something that is true, made in public good. Third is that it is not defamation to make in good faith, imputation in public good or in interest of any other person: John

I have pleaded exceptions: John

I have admitted to the publication of the tweet and article. I admit to the first ingredient. But I contest the other two: John

The tweets and the article are the truth, in the public good and made in good faith. Section 499 IPC is therefore not attracted: John

I have taken a consistent defense. In response to the notice and in cross examination of Akbar's witnesses, my section 313 statement and even I appeared as a witness for myself: John

It was corroborated by Nilofer: John

The WhatsApp exchange between Nilofer and me after the tweet but much before the complaint was filed.. Nilofer recollected the incident. Nilofer herself took the stand : John

Both Nilofer and Ramani state.. there is no contradiction at all.. that evening they met at Nilofer's mother's office..and they discussed questions and Nilofer left her at Oberoi at 7 pm. Nilofer is not an eye witness but her evidence is important: John

Immediately before and after the incident they were in communication with each other. The only person that Ramani told the incident to that night. This is what Nilofer remembers when she sees the tweets: John

Nilofer's evidence is relevant under evidence act: John

Opposition to Nilofer's evidence must be overruled: John

There is a deliberate misreading of the Vogue article. Priya Ramani is the author and she on oath has explained the structure of the article: John

The first four para deal with the interview with MJ Akbar. The other para do not. It is corroborated by her tweet in which she says that she began her piece with her MJ Akbar story: John

This is further corroborated by the title of the article- To the Harvey Weinsteins of the World . It is in plural: John

I also explained that portion in inverted commas were extracted from other articles that appeared in America in relation to Harvey Weinstein: John

Much emphasis was laid during arguments on the phrase- he didn't do anything- as if to suggest that nothing happened. It is a strange arguments because I can't be writing both the things together: John

Ramani has explained it. That there was no physical attack. But harasment takes many forms, mental and emotional: John

She explained why she used to word predator. To explain the difference in power and age, between herself and MJ Akbar. There is no contestation about Ramani's truth : John

Exception 1 with respect to truth stands proved : John

Public good, good faith and public interest.. incident of sexual harassment touches upon a public question. It can never be held that such disclosure is not for public good, public interest: John

John refers to a judgement delievered by the Delhi High Court yesterday.

Also Read
Impossible not to notice "common woman" being put down by "common man", less said the better about the third gender: Delhi High Court

Powerful words from our own High Court: John as she continues to read the judgement.

In this case, the High Court frowned upon the transfer of the complainant. By filing a defamation case against a woman who made allegations, are you not punishing the woman? Would it not have the same chilling effect on other women?: John

It is a matter of great public interest: John

Much is said on Ramani's premature tweet on Akbar's resignation. The tweet is not defamatory. Mr Akbar did resign three days later. The tweet was based in information in public domain. It was an honest mistake: John

They attack her credibility on delay in reporting. POSH, Vishakha judgement, IPC amendment was not in existence in 1993: John

There was no mechanism in Asian Age to deal with such complaints. Both Ghazala and Ramani have said that they made statements in 2018 because of MeToo movement. It gave them a safe platform outside the legal platform: John

Ramani hopes that she would spread awareness amongst younger colleagues. Ramani was not the only one who called out her male boss. She was one amongst hundred: John

While assessing the plea of delay, the same be assessed in the background of these factors: John

Ramani was not the first to tweet against Akbar. Several women had tweeted. Ghazala Wahab tweeted two days before. Shunali Khullar shroff and Prerna Singh Bhindra tweeted before her: John

Ramani's articles and tweets and not malafide. Truth is painful.. but you seek to serve the larger purpose. It has not been easy to say all this, it has taken a toll on her. But sometimes, it is cowardly if one does not speak the truth: John

Priya statement is unimpeached and remains consistent: John

Third, I contest reputation. Their case is of stellar reputation: John

There are allegations by 14 women in the document proved by them. Reputation is a fact in issue and I have every right to challenge it : John

I also rely on the ANI responses filed by Mr Akbar and his wife to the Pallavi Gogoi article: John

The admission made by Akbar severely dents his reputation: John

The testimony of Ghazala Wahab and her supporting evidence is a challenge to his stellar reputation: John

Priya Ramani and Ghazala Wahab did not work together, were not friends. The incidents were from.. different times: John

There was no pre planned conspiracy on part of Ramani or any other woman. Most of these women did not know each other: John

Mr Akbar's witnesses have said that they have heard only of Ramani's tweets and not the tweets made by others: John

The women who made allegations are professionals of high standing and reputation. There is nothing to suggest falsehood or ulterior motive : John

The third ingredient of reputation stands disproved by defence: John

Akbar himself did not come with clean hands: John

Some women had worse experience than Priya Ramani. Why was Ramani singled out in this manner? This creates a doubt on the credibility of the Complainant: John

My Twitter account is not case property. To suggest so is preposterous and absurd: John

I've violated no court order. People can leave social media at will. That is my fundamental right : John

Court must be guided by the standard of beyond reasonable doubt for complainant.. : John

The test of preponderance of probability vs proof beyond reasonable doubt is what the Supreme Court says. On accused, it is test of preponderance of probability: John

The objections raised against my evidence are without any basis: John

The objections to electronic record is also baseless: John

No case of defamation is made out against Priya Ramani. She has proved her case through evidence: John

To say that Ramani and other women have lied for no apparent reason is beyond logic : John

I plead that Priya Ramani be acquitted: John

If the court requires any clarification, I can be asked to come back. I plead that after Complainant side completes, I may be given opportunity to file written submissions: John

Advocate Sandeep Kapur for MJ Akbar: The court may give us two hours everyday from Monday. We will conclude before the vacation.

Court suggests December 24. Kapur presses for dates from Monday onwards.

Court suggests December 22 and 24.

December 23 is not possible. There's another case for final argument: Court

2 pm on December 22 and 11 am - 2pm on December 24: Court

Hearing over. Matter to be heard next on December 22 at 2 pm.

MJ Akbar
Priya Ramani
Rouse Avenue Court
#MeToo campaign
Defamation suit
Me Too

Related Stories

No stories found.
Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news
www.barandbench.com