Reputation of 50 years irreparably harmed, Priya Ramani should be punished: Senior Adv Geeta Luthra concludes for MJ Akbar before Delhi Court

Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra concluded her rebuttal arguments on behalf of journalist and former Union minister MJ Akbar in the criminal defamation case filed by Akbar before a Delhi court against journalist Priya Ramani (MJ Akbar vs Priya Ramani)..Luthra demanded justice from the Court seeking punishment for Ramani for irreparably tarnishing Akbar's reputation of 50 years by alleging sexual harassment against him on Twitter. ."Whatever the defense that may be taken, the fact is that it cannot undo the harm done. Even a conviction can't undo the harm. In this case, the law should have its consequences. I've been harmed, I seek justice from this court. I have no other way," Luthra stated. .This is not a Me Too case but a defamation case and Priya Ramani should be punished under criminal law of defamation, she added. .In October 2018, Akbar had filed a criminal defamation complaint against Ramani after she took to Twitter to level allegations of sexual misconduct against him..Ramani claimed that in December 1993, MJ Akbar sexually harassed her when she was called to The Oberoi, Mumbai for a job interview. .While Ramani pleaded truth, good faith, public interest and public good as her defence in the defamation trial, Luthra denied the meeting at the hotel. .Counsel for Akbar maintained that allegations "stink of bad faith" and were nothing but malicious. .Senior Advocate Luthra today argued that Ramani failed to discharge the onus of proving the defense pleaded by her. ."The (Vogue) article is false and at the very least, is highly imaginative. It is not true.. The onus is on her to prove public good, public interest and good faith. She has not been able to discharge this onus..Not even an iota of her statement is true. The onus is on her to prove each and every averment.".Luthra relied on the absence of any complaint to any court or authority in relation to the incident to argue that Ramani had no regard for due process. .It was also contended that before calling Akbar media's biggest sexual predator, no due care and caution was exercised by Ramani. ."It is too easy to say something on social media without verifying..One has to give reasons and facts to show that there was due care and caution," Luthra contended. .As far as the witnesses produced by Ramani are concerned, Luthra said that the evidence of Nilofer Ventakraman, her friend, was inadmissible on account of being hearsay and fabricated. .Testimony of journalist Ghazala Wahab was also doubted for being unrelated to the case at hand. .Not a sexual harassment case: Geeta Luthra argues for MJ Akbar before Delhi Court in defamation case against Priya Ramani.It was also stated that Ramani's statement before Court was full of contradictions. .Earlier this month, Luthra had extensively argued that Ramani's conduct of deleting her Twitter account during the course of the trial amounted to the destruction of evidence which is an offence under the Indian Penal Code. .Today, Senior Advocate Rebecca John who represents Priya Ramani made brief submissions in response to Luthra's rebuttal. .She reiterated that under no stretch of imagination could it be argued that the entire Vogue article was on her experience with MJ Akbar. .John once again clarified that only the first four paragraphs pertained to the incident of 1993 and the remaining article referred to other male bosses, particularly Harvey Weinstein. .John also objected to Akbar's stand that the allegations and the Vogue article are fictitious. ."How is this fictitious? When I recall something that happened to me, it is a real-life story and not fictitious. You are undermining the sexual harassment that women go through at workplace," she remarked. .Senior Advocate John will continue her submissions on February 1. .Read the entire account of the hearing below. .MJ Akbar v. Priya Ramani: Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra concludes submissions on behalf of MJ Akbar in Delhi Court [LIVE UPDATES]