Priya Ramani’s counsel: MJ Akbar ‘selectively targeted’ Ramani to ‘halt other women from speaking out’, Copyright © 2020 Newslaundry Media Private Limited. white female. The complainant asked Ramani to prove her telephonic conversation with Nilofer Venkatraman (also a defence witness) in 1993, before and after the December hotel incident when MJ Akbar allegedly sexually harassed her during a job interview. Why not other women? “This case is not about how hard Mr Akbar has worked,” John continued. “Freedom of speech and expression is critical and integral to a democratic society. 'Vishakha Guidelines took a long time to get implemented by both the judiciary and the media', she argued. ", "Either everyone's articles and tweets are defamatory or none are. Date Missing - 6/7/97. Stating the legal definition of “good faith”, John said, on Tuesday, that Ramani showed good faith because her Vogue article and subsequent contentious tweets were based on her own experience, as well as that of multiple women who had spoken up against Akbar.According to Section 52 of the IPC, “Nothing is said to be done or believed in “good faith” which is done or believed without due care and attention.” Thus, good faith, essentially implies due care and attention. “There was an avalanche of revelations against Mr Akbar and Ramani was one of them. We'll send you more. While the court examines the merits, the court must see that I was part of a collective (who called him out).
A year later, in the wake of the #MeToo movement, Ramani had alleged on social media that the former boss had, in fact, been Akbar.
Ramani worked at The Asian Age from January to October in 1994. Further, John argued that Ramani’s harassment happened about 20 years ago when there were no Vishakha guidelines, which provides remedial and punitive measures in cases of sexual harassment at workplaces, and that even the Indian Penal Code was limited in its scope to address such incidents. Further, Luthra reportedly said there was no due process in the allegations. Further, on the charge that Ramani threw herself on the bandwagon which targeted Akbar, John said that such an accusation is “not respectful to the testimonies (of women who alleged sexual harassment by Akbar)”. Senior Advocate Rebecca John today argued before a Delhi Court that MJ Akbar’s witnesses in the criminal defamation case launched by him against Priya Ramani, over allegations of sexual harassment against him, are "unreliable." The court was adjourned mid-way, owing to other commitments, but John’s concluding remarks will continue at 12 noon on 8 September. They don't know about my incident or have worked with me. New Delhi: Senior journalist Priya Ramani’s counsel on Saturday closed her arguments in the defamation case that former Union minister of state for external affairs and journalist M.J.Akbar had filed against her.
The fact that I (Ramani) wrote the (Vogue) article is an admissionâ @TheQuint.
Witnesses in the case like Ghazala Wahab and Niloufer Venkataraman, who have distinguished records as a practicing journalists, have also deposed in court that there were no mechanisms for complaints regarding sexual harassment at Asian Age, the newspaper which Akbar edited.
While addressing the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vishal Pahuja, Ms John submitted that Ramani should be acquitted as her story is her truth, which was made in good faith to encourage women to speak up against sexual harassment at workplace.
Further arguing that Akbar's complaint, as well as his "memory lapse" during the trial, was selective, John reiterated. Date of Birth - 11/26/70. Rebecca John, appearing for Priya Ramani, said that the “Offence of defamation is not an absolute offence”. ", MJ Akbar has no stellar reputation; Priya Ramani's allegations validated by combined experience of multiple women: Sr Adv Rebecca John, "A person claiming impeccable reputation is having a consensual relationship with a junior while being married to someone else. John added that even if, for once, one assumes that Ramani’s allegations were part of a bandwagon, why did Akbar “selectively target” her and file a defamation case only against her. Further John submitted that these witnesses, namely, Joyeeta Basu, Veenu Sandal, Sunil Gujral and Tapan Chaki, could, in no way, contest Ramani’s allegations against MJ Akbar.
Priya Ramani and M.J. Akbar. The case is seeing its final hearings. Judge Vishal Pahuja, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rouse Avenue was hearing final submissions in MJ Akbar's criminal defamation case against Priya Ramani. Also read: M.J. Akbar, Minister and Former Editor, Sexually Harassed and Molested Me. Ramani's lawyer pointed out that as many as 14 women have also made similar charges of sexual harassment against Akbar. On Saturday, John submitted before the court that Ramani does admit to writing the contentious Vogue article, but states that the article does not pertain to Akbar alone. Photo: The Wire/PTI. Such statements are exception to the rule barring hearsay as admissible evidence. Senior Advocate Rebecca M John today completed her final arguments on behalf of journalist Priya Ramani who is facing a criminal defamation case for sharing her #MeToo story against MJ Akbar.