By claiming that his herbal concoction ‘Coronil’ is a cure for Covid-19, interestingly without any scientific data to corroborate his claim, Baba Ramdev has managed to upset many scientists and medical experts over the past few months.

Additionally, in a video circulated on social media, the Yogi allegedly criticised allopathy treatment and contentiously said, “Allopathy ek stupid aur diwaliya science hai, pehle chloroquine fail hogayi, phir remdesivir, phir anti-biotics fail hogaye, phir steroids inke fail hogaye, kal plasma therapy pe ban lag gaya aur fabiflu bhi fail hai..yeh kya tamasha ho raha hai? Laakhon logo ki maut allopathy ki davaiyaan khaane se hui hai”. (Allopathy is a stupid and bankrupt science, first chloroquine failed, then Remdesivir, then anti-biotics, steroids, plasma therapy was banned yesterday, and fabiflu failed too. Lakhs of people have died because of consuming allopathic medicines).

This statement by Ramdev did not go down well with the Indian Medical Association (IMA) that served a defamation notice on Ramdev for his disparaging remarks against allopathy and allopathic doctors, demanding an apology from him, failing which it said it will demand a compensation of Rs 1,000 crore. After a nudge from the Union Health Minister Dr. Harshvardhan, Ramdev was forced to retract his statement against allopathy and modern science, and also tendered an apology. However, he went on to tweet an open letter of “25 questions to IMA” on lines of treatment on not just Covid-19 but also diabetes, hypertension, spondylitis, etc. One question posed to the IMA was about whether allopathy can find a cure for rudeness and violent behaviour!

मैं इंडियन मेडिकल एसोसिएशन व फार्मा कंपनियों से विनम्रता के साथ सीधे 25 सवाल पूछता हूँ- pic.twitter.com/ATVKlDc9tl

— स्वामी रामदेव (@yogrishiramdev) May 24, 2021

Ramdev has also been solely responsible for triggering people for his insensitive remarks against Covid-19 patients, mocking them for complaining about oxygen shortage. During one of his live yoga sessions in the beginning of May, The Quint reported him saying, “People are looking for cylinders outside while God has given you two cylinders right here inside you (referring to one’s lungs). Use them, fool! Two cylinders are here (pointing to his lungs), the two doctors are your legs, and two nurses are right here (pointing to his hands). Have some courage, they are just dying. There are no beds, no hospitals, not enough doctors, not enough medicines, no cremation grounds…a negative environment has been created everywhere.”

Ramkrishna Yadav alias Baba Ramdev, has also made objectional statements against vaccines saying that he did not feel the need to get inoculated since he had been practicing yoga-Ayurveda for decades, reported the Scroll.in. In another video from May, Ramdev claimed that 1,000 doctors died even after getting two doses of the vaccine. But in June, he decided against his own preaching and said that he will take the vaccine.

Yoga guru’s legal troubles

Ramdev’s statements are not only unverified and misleading, but attracts criminal liability. Multiple FIRs have been filed against him and Patanjali’s CEO Acharya Balkrishna, in the states of Bihar and Chhattisgarh, alleging that his comments are likely to cause prejudice to Covid-19 control, and dissuade patients to take allopathic treatment.

In Uttarakhand, the High Court is seized with the matter filed against Patanjali Ayurveda for making claims about Coronil vis-à-vis treatment of the deadly Covid-19 virus, in the absence of requisite permission from the Government. According to LiveLaw, the court has already issued a notice to the to the Central Government. On June 23, 2020, Patanjali had reportedly launched “Coronil and Swasari”, what it claims is the Ayurvedic cure for treating Covid, which they said has shown “100 per cent favourable results” during clinical trials on some affected patients.

But the Ministry of AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa-Rigpa and Homoeopathy), jumped in on the subject refraining Patanjali Ayurveda Limited to advertise/publicise such claims till the issue is duly examined. The Ministry had also clarified those facts of the claim and details of the stated scientific study are not known to it, and are uncorroborated. The company was also asked by the Ayush Ministry to provide at the earliest, details of the name and composition of the medicines being claimed for Covid treatment; site(s)/hospital(s), where the research study was conducted; protocol, sample size, Institutional Ethics Committee clearance, and results data of the studies

Is an apology enough?

The saffron robe clad Ramdev has amassed a lot of support and fan following including within the government over the years. As one of the most prominent faces of alternate medicines in India, his jibe at modern science and doctors has yet not gotten him into any trouble. Coronil, a traditional Indian medicine manufactured by Patanjali and launched in the presence of the Union Health Minister last year in June, was alleged to have been a cure for Covid-19.

Since it failed to scientifically substantiate its claim about Covid-19, the Central Government intervened to stop its marketing as an anti-Covid drug but allowed it to be sold as an “immunity booster”. As per a BBC report, on February 19 this year, Patanjali held another event in the presence of the health minister, at which claims were repeated that it could prevent and treat Covid-19.

Balkrishna told BBC, “It has treated and cured people”, while referring to the scientific trials, the results of which it says have been published in several peer-reviewed journals. It received AYUSH Ministry’s certification as ‘supporting measure’ for Covid-19 treatment in February. Patanjali’s statement read, “Coronil has received the Certificate of Pharmaceutical Product (CoPP) from the Ayush section of Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation as per the WHO certification scheme.” With some emerging rumours about WHO certification, the international body was forced to issue a statement clarifying their stand against approving any traditional medicine for Covid-19.

.@WHO has not reviewed or certified the effectiveness of any traditional medicine for the treatment #COVID19.

— WHO South-East Asia (@WHOSEARO) February 19, 2021

Despite the barrage of misinformation and unsolicited claims, Dr. Harshvardhan, who was the Union Health Minister at that time, thought its most appropriate to write him a letter asking him to withdraw all objectionable statements instead of prosecuting him. Is Ramdev above the law? Doesn’t law apply to everyone equally? An apology does not absolve an individual of legal liability, nor does it make the offence less punishable. Even as the medical community is fighting tooth and nail to contain the pandemic and misinformation, health authorities are not proactively taking a stand against the yoga guru.

According to an Indian Express report, the Maharashtra cyber police has arrested 342 people since the beginning of the pandemic last year for circulating misinformation, including in the form of social media posts, creating panic or peddling fake cures related to Covid-19. Self-proclaimed god man Ahmad Siddiqui who also called himself ‘Corona wale baba’ had put up a board outside his shop in Daliganj area, UP, claiming that he had a cure for the deadly virus. He was arrested by the Police in March, 2020 as per media sources. But Ramdev continues to enjoy immunity from arrests despite his scandalous and incorrect claims.

Brazen violations of the law

Some provisions under the Epidemics Act, Disaster Management Act, Indian Penal Code can be (and have been before some courts) easily invoked against Baba Ramdev. When last year, as discussed above, Patanjali had claimed that they have developed 100% cure for the Covid-19 through “Coronil and Swasari” medicines, the Ministry of Ayush had to refrain them for publicising the efficiency of this product. But why did it do so?

The answer lies in the April 21, 2020 directive, in which Ayush had imposed several conditions on the research for Covid-19 treatment using traditional means. As per these conditions, it was mandatory for the institution to apprise the Ministry of Ayush, the government of India about the research developments. An Ayush registered practioneer was also supposed to be a part of the research, but going by Patanjali’s declaration of finding a cure and Ayush’s intervention, it seems like Ramdev’s company missed a couple of steps.

Under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (DMA), section 52 (Punishment for false claim) lays down that whoever knowingly makes a claim which he knows or has reason to believe to be false for obtaining any relief, assistance, repair, reconstruction or other benefits consequent to disaster from any officer of the Central Government, the State Government, the National Authority, the State Authority or the District Authority, shall, on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, and also with fine; 

Section 54: Punishment for false warning states: “Whoever makes or circulates a false alarm or warning as to disaster or its severity or magnitude, leading to panic, shall on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine;

And section 60 states (Cognizance of offences), No court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by— 

(a) the National Authority, the State Authority, the Central Government, the State Government, the District Authority or any other authority or officer authorised in this behalf by that Authority or Government, as the case may be; or 

(b) any person who has given notice of not less than thirty days in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and his intention to make a complaint to the National Authority, the State Authority, the Central Government, the State Government, the District Authority or any other authority or officer authorised as aforesaid. 

In addition to these, section 3 of the Epidemic Disease Act, 1897, states that any person disobeying any regulation or order made under this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 188 of the IPC covers ‘Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.’

All these provisions require prior sanction by the concerned public officer, state, centre, district or any other appropriate authority, making it the legal and moral responsibility of the State to initiate actions against Ramdev. He cannot take the defense under Article 19 (freedom of speech and expression), to push his anti-science agenda that can trigger a new level of public disorder. This is not an Ayurveda versus allopathy debate. It is about how the State decides to tackle false claims of thousands of doctors dying despite vaccine shots, or how allopathy has killed people!

Section 505(1) (b) of the Indian Penal Code, penalises people who make, publish or circulate any statement, rumour or report, with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public. Arguably Baba’s statements do fall under this section, making him liable for a criminal offence. The Supreme Court has accepted the higher moral responsibility of people with influence, who are supposed to be careful with the information they disseminate. In Amish Devgan vs Union of India (W.P Crl. No. 160 of 2020), the court said:

“Persons of influence, keeping in view their reach, impact and authority they yield on general public or the specific class to which they belong, owe a duty and have to be more responsible. They are expected to know and perceive the meaning conveyed by the words spoken or written, including the possible meaning that is likely to be conveyed. With experience and knowledge, they are expected to have a higher level of communication skills. It is reasonable to hold that they would be careful in using the words that convey their intent.”

An upstart, so to speak, Ramdev helped launch Patanjali Ayurveda to initially sell herbal medicines, that eventually expanded as a huge business empire selling soaps, noodles, biscuits, diapers, vegetable oil, candles and even cow urine.

Prabir Purkayastha (engineer, science activist and President of Free Software Movement) explains his rise as someone who is not the first to have built an empire out of ‘babagiri’. “Many others have made religion a business, from Puttaparthi Saibaba to Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. Compare Sri Sri’s Rs. 50 crore annual revenue from his business to Ramdev’s Rs. 25,000 crore turnover from Patanjali Ayurveda, and we begin to see that the primary business of Ramdev is neither religion nor Yoga. It is leveraging his image as a ‘Yoga guru’ to become India’s latest billionaire”, he wrote for NewsClick.

Some people might even argue that Ramdev was one of the most televised Indian characters from hosting live yoga sessions with celebrities to being invited to the pro wrestling leagues and defeating Olympic medallists with his core strength. But Ramdev and Balkrishna preached much more than yoga and medicines. With Ramdev becoming an instant hit amongst the masses, his brand name helped Patanjali’s products to reach almost every household in the country. His rise as a yoga guru has been even more prominent after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s win in 2014. According to an investigative report done by Reuters, Baba Ramdev used to allegedly send his followers/supporters into the streets to campaign which ultimately helped propel Modi’s win.

Besides his exponential rise, this is about Ramdev’s slanderous attitude that is worthy of reiteration. This does not only demoralise the spirits of all health professionals, but also disrespects and degrades the efforts of all frontline workers who have been facing extraordinary circumstances since early last year.

Related:

What do Ramdev and Adityanath have in common?
Indian Medical Association seeks FIR against Ramdev
Covid-19: IMA slaps Rs 1,000 crore notice on Patanjali boss Ramdev

The post Do Baba Ramdev’s statements attract criminal liability? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Mumbai Sessions Court on April 5, 2021 dismissed Bollywood actress Kangana Ranaut’s revision application challenging the proceedings initiated against her by a magistrate’s court for allegedly defaming veteran lyricist Javed Akhtar.

Additional Sessions Judge S. U. Baghele at Dindoshi dismissed Ranaut’s challenge regarding the issuance of the process, the legality and validity of the February 1 order passed by the Andheri court and the following issuance of a bailable warrant against her for failing to appear before the court.

The actress’s lawyer Rizwan Siddiquee argued that the magistrate had not recorded complainant’s and witnesses’ statements before issuing a notice or proceeding with criminal complaints, as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Meanwhile, Akhtar’s advocate Jay Bharadwaj had previously opposed her application stating that witnesses were to be examined only if they were present.

In the end, the court said, “No error in the impugned order, as regards its correctness or legality could be pointed out, nor it could be pointed out that there was any irregularity in the proceeding before the learned Magistrate.”

In November 2020, Akhtar filed a complaint against Ranaut for making defamatory statements against him during a television interview on Republic TV that allegedly damaged his reputation.

At the time, the concerned magistrate directed the Mumbai police to do a preliminary probe and later issued a bailable warrant against Ranaut on March 1, after she failed to appear before the court.

The warrant was cancelled on March 25 after the actress padi a cash bail of Rs. 20,000 and a surety of Rs 15,000.

Related:

Javed Akhtar vs Kangana Ranaut: Mumbai court issues bailable warrant against Ranaut
Kangana Ranaut is whining about Twitter, on Twitter, for Twitter restricting her!
Javed Akhtar files defamation case against Kangana Ranaut

The post Sessions court dismisses Kangana’s plea against Javed Akhtar’s defamation case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gagandeep Jindal at South East Saket District Court has issued summons upon defendant Republic TV’s editor, Arnab Goswami, in a defamation civil suit filed by Popular Front of India (PFI) PR Director Dr. M. Shamoon.

As per some media reports, Dr. Shamoon has alleged that Republic TV, as a sting operation, published doctored video footage whereby the former is said to have promoted violent protests and the use of criminal force against the state. He further alleged that the video had led to irreparable damage to him personally as well as the nation at large, as the contents of the fabricated video had reached a worldwide audience.

According to a report in Newslaundry, the plaintiff argued, “If the defendant (Arnab Goswami) were not in nasty intention, they could have aired the complete dialogue made between the plaintiff and the so-called sting operator. The defendant jointly acted against public morality in this incident. It is an attempt to make somebody as criminal that he would not have committed at all. It is against the public morality and decency and hence falls within the purview of Article 19 (2).”

Dr Shamoom’s suit also states, “Since the contents of the fabricated video has reached worldwide, a vast number of friends and colleagues of the plaintiff called him and expressed their dissatisfaction towards the plaintiff against the filthy contents of the video, which was never expressed by the plaintiff really. The image and status of the plaintiff has been blatantly diminished among them,” reported LiveLaw.

He has therefore sought a mandatory injunction, seeking removal of the aforesaid defamatory video from their channel and other social media platforms. Judge Gagandeep Jindal said, “No prejudice is caused to the defendants, if the said application is allowed. Application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w 151 CPC is allowed.”

The channel’s chief, Arnab Goswami and others have been directed to appear before the court on May 27, 2021.

The order may be read here:

Related:

Arnabgate: Republic TV sends legal notice to Indian Express
Republic TV making TRP scam a “media spectacle”: Mumbai Police to SC

The post Delhi court issues notice to Arnab Goswami for PFI ‘sting operation’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

All eyes are on the verdict of the criminal defamation case brought about by politician and journalist MJ Akbar, once a minister in the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, who alleged defamation of his ‘stellar reputation’. He is suing the eminent journalist Priya Ramani, who has accused him of sexually harassing her when she was a junior and he was her boss.

Ramani has stood by her allegations over the past years, and has in turn empowered other women to come out with similar stories of being sexually harassed by Akbar over the years. The #MeToo movement in India, especially Indian journalism, cost Akbar his ministerial job, as his political patrons chose to distance themselves. 

Now, on February 10, a Delhi trial court is expected to pronounce a verdict in the criminal defamation case brought by Akbar, against  Priya Ramani. The case was being tried for around two years at the Rouse Avenue Court. Its verdict is likely to have an impact on the future of movements such as #MeToo, and on how sexual harassment survivors will feel approaching legal authorities in the future with complaints against powerful men.

Ramani, had even been asked in court about the ‘delay’ in reporting the crime when it happened. There was a “vacuum in law 25 years ago,” was her powerful reply, “When the incident took place in 1993 there was a gap in the law…whom could have I complained to? Legally I could not have evoked sexual harassment act because it was not in place.” Ramani’s powerful statement, put forth by Ramani’s lawyer Rebbecca John, one of the leading criminal law experts in the country, was widely reported, and hailed as a testimony of resilience, and of the fact that it is never too late to seek justice.

Former Union minister M J Akbar’s case in the defamation suit against her was centred on his “stellar reputation”, but this was false and “I had every right to contest it,” journalist Priya Ramani told the court that day.        

On October 23, the District & Sessions Judge, Rouse Avenue finally refused to transfer the case from a Special MP/MLA Court, reported Bar and Bench. On October 13, SabrangIndia had reported on the defamation case being transferred to District and Sessions Judge after having Senior Advocate Rebecca John spend three long months arguing the case on behalf of journalist Priya Ramani.

When the #MeToo movement was gaining traction in India, as many as 17 women had accused the former Union Minister of sexual misconduct including rape in one case. In October, 2018, MJ Akbar filed a criminal defamation case against Priya Ramani blaming her for tarnishing his reputation and calling him names such as ‘media’s biggest predator’.

Till date, he has denied all allegations terming it “false, fabricated and deeply distressing”. On October 22, 2020, the Judge refused to transfer the defamation case away from a Special MP/MLA Court. The case was being heard in since 2018, however, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vishal Pahuja had listed the matter before a District and Sessions Judge of the Rouse Avenue District Court on October 14 for appropriate orders. Advocate Rebecca John had spent three months arguing the case, the brilliant final arguments were reported widely. But ACMM Vishal Pahuja, had said that “only matters filed against MPs and MLAs can be listed before the Rouse House Avenue Court” whereas the case filed by MJ Akbar, a former Minister of State for External Affairs, dealt with defamation.

As late as November 2020, the court had asked if there was a possibility of a settlement in the criminal defamation case. Counsel appearing for Ramani informed the court that the chances of compromise are bleak as the facts of the case were peculiar in nature and that his client, Ramani stands by her statement and allegations.  

Related:

MJ Akbar vs Priya Ramani: Court asks if there is a possibility of a settlementMJ Akbar defamation case against Priya Ramani transferred to District and Sessions Judge
#MeToo: From Courtroom to Cinema
On Akbar and the #MeToo Movement
After #MeToo: Legal System Needs Change

The post Priya Ramani defamation case verdict expected tomorrow appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the ongoing criminal defamation case between MJ Akbar and Priya Ramani, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Ravindra Kumar Pandey has asked both the parties to think about the possibility of reaching a compromise.

Mr Bhavook Chauhan appeared for Priya Ramani and Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra represented MJ Akbar.

According to media reports, ACMM Pandey said, “The dispute between the two parties is compoundable in nature. You are senior lawyers and have settled disputes over the years. Is there a possibility of a settlement? I don’t know much about the case. I don’t know the level of the dispute. Prima facie, what I understand is that it is compoundable in nature. Both sides should decide, otherwise I will keep this for final arguments.”

Counsel appearing for Ms. Ramani informed the court that the chances of compromise are bleak as the facts of the case were peculiar in nature and that his client, Ms. Ramani stands by her statement and allegations.

When the court asked if Senior Advocate Luthra is willing to settle, she said that she will have to discuss it with her briefing counsel. The judge told the parties to explore this possibility and inform the court if they were willing to avail the same.

This matter will now be heard on November 24.

On October 13, SabrangIndia had reported on the defamation case being transferred to District and Sessions Judge after having Senior Advocate Rebecca John spend three long months arguing the case on behalf of journalist Priya Ramani.

When the #MeToo movement was gaining traction in India, as many as 17 women had accused the former Union Minister of sexual misconduct including rape in one case. In October, 2018, MJ Akbar filed a criminal defamation case against Priya Ramani blaming her for tarnishing his reputation and calling him names such as ‘media’s biggest predator’.

Till date, he has denied all allegations terming it “false, fabricated and deeply distressing”.  

Related:

MJ Akbar defamation case against Priya Ramani transferred to District and Sessions Judge
#MeToo: From Courtroom to Cinema
On Akbar and the #MeToo Movement
After #MeToo: Legal System Needs Change

The post MJ Akbar vs Priya Ramani: Court asks if there is a possibility of a settlement appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Kerala High Court has quashed a case of defamation against the editor of Malayala Manorama while observing that contemptuous nature of the news item, if it is connected with imputation of truth, which requires publication for the public good will not attract the offence of defamation under the Indian Penal Code.

The Managing Editor, Chief Editor and Printer of Daily Newspaper Malayala Manorama had filed the petition to quash a private complaint filed against them filed under section 500 of IPC. The section 499 of the IPC gives a detailed definition of the offence of defamation:

Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person. 

There are a few exceptions to this definition as well; the first exception states, “Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published.—It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact”.

The single judge bench of Justice P. Somarajan, in the order dated November 13, observed that the news item in question reported the true version of an enquiry report submitted by the Vigilance Department recommending criminal action against the complainant.

The court held that this case comes under the first exception under section 499 of IPC (mentioned above),

It is the duty of the fourth estate to publish all news materials, especially having public importance and it is their further duty to comment on the news material with its pros and cons so as to enlighten the society to remain vigil on the matters of public importance…The fourth estate is not expected to shy away from the matters governing public importance, but it is their solemn duty to serve the society with the news item with its pros and cons so as to bring the society more functional and vigil.

The court further commented that the press “being one of the rostrums to address and comment on each and every matter governing public interest/ public importance in a democratic society, the news item published with necessary comments, though sometimes contemptuous, may not itself amount to a defamation”, unless it is lacking good faith and does not concern with public good.

The court also held, “The contemptuous nature of news item, if it is connected with imputation of truth, which requires publication for the public good will not attract the offence and there shall not be any misunderstanding with respect to the requirement to attract Section 499 IPC with the first exception therein.”

The court thus found that the publishing of the news item does not amount to defamation. The court noted that the complainant was in fact booked on criminal charges basis the enquiry report that was published in the news item and the complaint was filed only to “defeat the solemn function vested with the fourth estate and it will tell upon what is behind it” and deemed it as “abuse of process of court”. The proceedings were hence, quashed.

The order may be read here.

Related:

Journalist Prashant Kanojia walks out of jail, free speech supporters rejoice!
Journalism is a deadly vocation for those who question power
Srinagar: NIA raids human rights defenders, NGOs, media house in terror funding probe

The post Kerala HC: It is duty of press to comment on news to enlighten public appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“It is frustrating, but I am the recipient of the order, not the maker,” Senior Advocate Rebecca John told SabrangIndia on Tuesday, soon after a defamation case filed by former union minister MJ Akbar against journalist Priya Ramani was transferred to a District and Sessions Judge. Advocate Rebecca John has already concluded her submissions on behalf of Priya Ramani. It was MJ Akbar’s lawyer Geeta Luthra’s turn to reply to John’s final arguments.

However, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vishal Pahuja listed the matter before a District and Sessions Judge of the Rouse Avenue District Court on October 14 for appropriate orders. According to news reports, ACMM Vishal Pahuja, said that “only matters filed against MPs and MLAs can be listed before the Rouse House Avenue Court” whereas the case filed by MJ Akbar, a former Minister of State for External Affairs, dealt with defamation. Akbar had filed the case against journalist Priya Ramani for accusing him of sexual harassment when he was her editor.

While observing that this court would only deal with matters relating to Parliamentarians and legislators, ACMM Pahuja cited directions issued by the Supreme Court relating to matters relating to lawmakers pending against courts. “There has been direction from the Supreme Court… This case has to be placed before the learned District & Sessions Judge for directions. This court will only deal with cases against MP/MLAs… I am listing it for directions before the District & Sessions Judge,” Judge Vishal was quoted by the legal postal Bar and Bench.

Explanation: The case will be placed before the District & Sessions Judge, Rouse Avenue for directions now.

After consideration, the District & Sessions Judge will pass an order on whether the case will continue before Judge Pahuja. #MJAkbar #PriyaRamani

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) October 13, 2020

According to Advocate John, she and her team had already spent three months arguing the case. Another senior lawyer familiar with the case added that such a transfer was not unusual, but could certainly cause a further delay before the verdict is pronounced. The final arguments will have to be placed before the new judge. 

In her last closing submissions in the case Advocate John had said on behalf of Priya Ramani, “I have proved my case and I deserve to be acquitted.” Now the matter will be heard by the District &  Sessions Judge on October 14. After consideration, the District & Sessions Judge will pass an order on whether the case will continue before Judge Pahuja, stated Bar and Bench. Sujata Kohli, District & Sessions Judge-Cum Special Judge (PC Act/CBI) acts as the administrative head of the administrative head of Rouse Avenue Court Complex. She will hear the matter tomorrow morning and pass necessary directions.

As reported earlier, Ramani has stood by her allegations over the past years, and has in turn empowered other women journalists to come out with similar stories of being sexually harassed by Akbar over the years. The #MeToo movement in India, especially Indian journalism, cost Akbar his ministerial job, as his political patrons chose to distance themselves.

As expected, Ramani, a survivor of the sexual attack, was even asked in court about the ‘delay’ in reporting the crime when it happens. There was a “vacuum in law 25 years ago,” was her brief and powerful reply. “When the incident took place in 1993 there was a gap in the law…whom could I have complained to? Legally I could not have evoked sexual harassment act because it was not in place,” Ramani said. Former Union minister M J Akbar’s case in the defamation suit against her was centred on his “stellar reputation”, but this was false and “I had every right to contest it,” journalist Priya Ramani told the court. 

In 2018 as the #MeToo movement was picking up in India, Ramani had accused Akbar of sexual harassment, the incident took place around 25 years ago when she was a junior journalist, and he a powerful editor. After she had made the allegations, Akbar was eventually forced to resign as a Union minister in October 2018, and more women who had once worked as his juniors also came forth with similar allegations. 

Related:

Why do the mighty cry ‘defamation’ when accused of sexual harassment?
#MeToo: From Courtroom to Cinema
Why the ‘Me Too’ movement in India is succeeding at last
On Akbar and the #MeToo Movement
After #MeToo: Legal System Needs Change
AIDWA Demands Resignation of Minister of State for External Affairs, M J Akbar

The post MJ Akbar defamation case against Priya Ramani transferred to District and Sessions Judge appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: Bar & Bench

Moitra filed the case before a Metropolitan Magistrate at Patiala House, New Delhi on July 15, after Chaudhary alleged that the MP’s maiden parliamentary speechwas plagiarised.(See here)

She Said, He Said

Mahua Moitra, of the opposition Trinamool Congress Party (TMC), said she had seen a list of the early warning signs of fascism on a poster in the Holocaust Memorial Museum in the US.

On June 25, Moitra had made a passionate speech before the parliament on the ‘Seven Signs of Fascism’. It was inspired by a poster she came across at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum which contained a list of the 14 early warning signs of fascism.In her speech, Moitra applied seven of the signs to India and attributed this original source to her speech.

Moitra’s speech immediately gained considerable internet traction and was lauded on social media. (See here and here.)

Zee News anchor Sudhir Choudhary alleged on national television in the network’s “DNA Test” segment that Moitra had plagiarised the speech from anarticle by American commentator Martin Longman on the American President Donald Trump.The Wire reported that Chaudhary had broadcast a programme saying Moitra’s speech was plagiarised from Longman’s article, and that Moitra’s views were not her own but only were “copy-pasted” from this article.

Chaudharyalso tweeted this at the time of covering the story:

It reads, “This is the website article that Trinamool Congress Member MahuaMoitra stole to use in her speech. She used the exact same wording of the article, verbatim. The integrity of the Legislature is in danger.”

On Twitter, Longman rejected the claim that the Trinamool MP had plagiarised his work, stating “I’m internet famous in India because a politician is being falsely accused of plagiarizing me. It’s kind of funny, but right-wing a******s seem to be similar in every country.”

As the controversy grabbed public attention, multiple sources fact-checked Chaudhary’s claims and concluded them to be false. (See this, this, this, and this.)

Legal on-goings

On July 15, Moitra filed her defamation case against Chaudhary and Zee News.At the time of filing, Moitra had stated in a public statement, “I have immense respect for freedom of speech, as guaranteed under the Constitution, but I also fear tremendously the power of fake news. … In this day and age of 24*7 news channels, without proper fact-checking, and spring-boarding of such broadcasts in the minds of the general public, it is all the more important that individuals who make statements that are false to their knowledge, be brought to book.”

Moitra has also moved a motion in parliament against Zee News and Chaudhary for a breach of parliamentary privilege. The Hindu reported that Speaker Om Birla disallowed the motion when the MP named the channel and the editor, the speaker did not allow it because the journalist was not a member of the house.

Chaudhary raised objections to the case on the ground that the Metropolitan Magistrate proceeded with the defamation case without hearing the application that he had filed against Moitra. He had initiated criminal action against Moitra under Section 340CrPC for her “false” criminal defamation case and for “playing fraud” with the court. The application also contended that the Moitra’s writ petition was not maintainable since its prayer would require the High Court to extendits limited power in the exercise of the writ of certiorari.

Subsequently, the Additional Sessions Court heard Chaudhary’s application and stayed the proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Aggrieved by the stay, Moitra had moved the High Court, where she argued that the order of the Sessions Court was erroneous as it had no power to stall pre-summoning proceedings under revision jurisdiction.
 
Related:

1. MahuaMoitra files defamation case against Zee News anchor
2. ‘BJP has ‘lust to divide’, says Trinamool MP MahuaMoitra in a fiery maiden speech in Parliament
3. GauharRaza slaps notice on Zee News, Seeks Compensation and Apology

The post Delhi HC sets aside stay in Mahua Moitra’s defamation case against Zee’s Head Honcho appeared first on SabrangIndia.