February 17 will be remembered as a day of reckoning for the #MeToo movement as a Delhi court acquitted journalist Priya Ramani of defamation charges filed by Rajya Sabha MP and former cabinet Minister MJ Akbar. Ramani was one of the many accusers who had come forward and spoken about the many misdeeds of MJ Akbar and alleged instances of sexual harassment. 

The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Ravindra Kumar Pandey acquitted Ramani of charges of defamation levelled against her by MJ Akbar while agreeing to the contention that MJ Akbar is “not a man of stellar reputation”.

While MJ Akbar quit from his ministership in 2018, he chose Ramani, among all accusers, to file a case of criminal defamation against her and thus began this trial where women appeared as witnesses in support of Ramani, retelling stories of alleged sexual harassment by MJ Akbar.

In the course of this trial, the judge hearing the case for the longest time, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vishal Pahuja was transferred in November 2020 and ACMM Ravindra Kumar Pandey started hearing the case. Judge Pandey offered both parties an option of settlement, “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.” 

However, Ramani’s counsel told 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. During the trial, Ramani was represented by Senior Advocate Rebecca John.

The case

The complainant, MJ Akbar, stated that the following defamatory remarks were made by Ramani: “I began this piece with my MJ Akbar story. Never named him because he didn’t ‘do’ anything. Lots of women have worse stories about this predator, maybe they’ll share’, ‘ the media’s biggest sexual predator’. ‘ How many more stories do you need to hear?’, ‘Am glad # M.J Akbar won’t be in the workplace any more but Akbar represents countless men who believe they can say and do whatever they want to women without any consequences’. ‘You’re an expert on obscene phone calls, texts, inappropriate compliments and not taking no for an answer’.

MJ Akbar further averred that by not taking any action against him at that time clearly belies the sanctity of the allegation made by her, which evidently goes on to prove that those defamatory articles were only a figment of her imagination, and were only intended to malign him.

John argued that the MeToo Movement provided a platform to the women sexually harassed to break their silence and in 1993-94 when she faced sexual harassment at the hands of MJ Akbar, she did not have any legal remedies. During the trial, as many as 12 women’s tweets were presented before the court alleging sexual harassment by MJ Akbar. John argued that this demolishes MJ Akbar’s claim of having a stellar reputation. She further argued that MJ Akbar selectively targeted accused Priya Ramani to create chilling effect against other victims of his sexual violence/harassment.

Ramani took the defence that publication of article and tweet were made for public good regarding the true incident of her sexual harassment of December 1993, at Oberoi Hotel, Mumbai when complainant M.J Akbar called Ramani for interview at 07.00 PM in his bed room of the hotel and sexually harassed her. Ramani contended that she made publication in good faith for protection for other women’s interest in general regarding sexual harassment at workplace.

The court’s findings

The court accepted Ramani’s contention that complainant is not a man of stellar reputation basis testimonies of defence witnesses. Basis these testimonies, the court observed, “It cannot be ignored that most of the time, the offence of sexual harassment and sexual abuse committed in the close doors or privately. Sometimes the victim herself does not understand what is happening to them or what is happening to them is wrong.”

The court held that Despite how well respected some persons are in society, they in their personal lives, could show extreme cruelty to the females. The court took into consideration systematic abuse at the workplace due to lack of the mechanism to redress the grievance of sexual harassment when these incidents took place which was before the Vishaka guidelines issued by Supreme Court or The Sexual Harassment of women at workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 or the option to not lodge complaint owing to the social stigma.

The court pointed out that an abusive person can also be a well respected person of the society. About the victims of abuse, the court said, “The victims of the sexual abuse not even speak a word about abuse for many years because sometimes she herself have no idea that she is a victim of abuse. The victim may keep believing that she is at fault and victim may live with that shame for years or for decades.”

The court recognised that such sexual abuse takes away the woman’s dignity and her self confidence and attacking the abuser’s character is an act of self defence after the mental trauma suffered due to the shame attached with the crime:

“The woman cannot be punished for raising voice against the Sex-abuse on the pretext of criminal complaint of defamation as the right of reputation cannot be protected at the cost of the right of life and dignity of woman as guaranteed in Indian Constitution under article 21 and right of equality before law and equal protection of law as guaranteed under article 14 of the Constitution.”

The court clarified, “The woman has a right to put her grievance at any platform of her choice and even after decades.” 

“It is shameful that the incidents of crime and violence against women are happening in the country where mega epics such as “Mahabarata” and “Ramayana” were written around the theme of respect for women,” said the court in its order. 

In its endeavour to shatter the glass ceiling the court remarked, “The ‘glass ceiling’ will not prevent the Indian women as a road lock for their advancement in the society, if equal opportunity and social protection be given to them”. 

The court thus held Ramani not guilty of defaming MJ Akbar, thus acquitting her of charges of defamation.

Related:

I feel vindicated: Priya Ramani acquitted in MJ Akbar defamation case 

MJ Akbar vs Priya Ramani: Pronouncement of judgment deferred till Feb 17   

AIDWA Demands Resignation of Minister of State for External Affairs, M J Akbar 

Defamation case filed by MJ Akbar to continue before Special MP-MLA Court

The post Right of reputation can’t be protected at the cost of Right to life: Delhi court acquits Priya Ramani appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post I feel vindicated: Priya Ramani acquitted in MJ Akbar defamation case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Ravindra Kumar Pandey has deferred the pronouncement of judgment in the defamation case filed by MJ Akbar against journalist Priya Ramani till February 17, 2021. The criminal defamation case deals with allegations of sexual harassment against the former Minister.

Bar & Bench tweeted from Rouse Avenue Court Complex (Delhi) stating that the Court said: “I got the written submissions late. I am adjourning the matter. Pronouncement of judgment deferred till February 17.”

I got the written submissions late. I’m adjourning the matter : Court #PriyaRamani #MeToo

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) February 10, 2021

Background:

Priya 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 Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member and Union Minister Akbar his ministerial job, as his political patrons chose to distance themselves. 

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 Rebecca 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.        

Timeline: MJ Akbar vs Priya Ramani

February 1, 2021: Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court reserves judgment in the case

November 21, 2020: Court asks if there is a possibility of a settlement

The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Ravindra Kumar Pandey asked both the parties to think about the possibility of reaching a compromise. Advocate Bhavook Chauhan appeared for Priya Ramani and Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra representing MJ Akbar. ACMM Pandey reportedly 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.” Ramani’s counsel told 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.

October 23, 2020: Case continues before Special MP-MLA Court

The District & Sessions Judge, Rouse Avenue finally refused to transfer the case from a Special MP/MLA Court. This court has heard the case since 2018, however on October 14, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vishal Pahuja had listed the matter before a District and Sessions Judge of the Rouse Avenue District Court for appropriate orders. Advocate Rebecca John, representing Priya Ramani, 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. ACMM Pahuja had cited directions issued by the Supreme Court relating to matters relating to lawmakers pending against courts. Sujata Kohli, District & Sessions Judge-Cum Special Judge (PC Act/CBI) had reserved order on the issue of transfer on October 14, and on October 22, the Judge refused to transfer the defamation case away from a Special MP/MLA Court. 

November 18, 2020: Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vishal Pahuja transferred

The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vishal Pahuja, who had been hearing the criminal defamation case, was transferred out of the Rouse Avenue Court. He was replaced by ACMM Ravindra Kumar Pandey. 

May 4, 2019: Trial begins at the Rouse Avenue Court complex

February 25, 2019:  Priya Ramani granted bail

Delhi’s Patiala House Court grants bail to Priya Ramani and tells her to furnish a personal bond and surety of Rs 10,000 each.

January 29, 2019:  Court summons Priya Ramani.

A magistrate in Delhi’s Patiala House Court issued summons to Priya Ramani, to appear before it. Ramani does not live in Delhi, and now has to travel to appear in person.

October 17, 2018: MJ Akbar resigns as a MoS External Affairs

October 12, 2018: AIDWA Demands M J Akbar’s resignation from Cabinet

The All-India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA) demanded the immediate resignation of the Minister of State for External Affairs, MJ Akbar against whom many complaints of molestation, sexual assault and harassment have been made. AIDWA’s president Malini Bhattacharya and general secretary Mariam Dhawale issued a statement in solidarity with journalist Ghazala Wahab who had shared her experience of sexual harassment she alleged facing as an intern in Asian Age by the then editor MJ Akbar. The AIDWA put on record its response to the sexual harassment allegations made against him by six journalists, and demanded the resignation of MJ Akbar. 

December 12, 2018: Editors Guild of India suspends MJ Akbar

The Editors Guild of India suspended MJ Akbar, as well as Tarun Tejpal based on the allegations of sexual misconduct against them. 

October 15, 2018: MJ Akbar files criminal defamation case against Priya Ramani

Politician-journalist MJ Akbar files a criminal defamation case against senior journalist Priya Ramani. Akbar stated in court that Ramani had defamed him by using adjectives such as ‘media’s biggest predator’ and had thus ‘harmed his reputation’. He also denied all the allegations of sexual harassment against the women who came forward during #MeToo campaign against him. He alleged defamation, telling the court that the allegations made by Ramani in an article in the ‘Vogue’ and the subsequent tweets were defamatory on the face of it. He stated that “the complainant had deposed them to be false and imaginary.” 

October 8, 2018: Priya Ramani names MJ Akbar in a tweet

The senior journalist said it was Akbar, her former boss, who was mentioned in her Vogue article from 2017. The article had detailed allegations of sexual harassment that a young woman journalist had suffered at the hands of a powerful male editor.

October 6, 2018: Journalist Ghazala Wahab posts on social media if Akbar will be named during #MeToo 

Journalist Ghazala Wahab, had in a social media post, mentioned Akbar wondering when his name will come up as disclosures of sexual harassment in the work place were being made public when the #MeToo movement got traction in India. Soon many women journalists spoke up, or hinted at their own experiences of sexual harassment, allegedly by MJ Akbar when he was their boss. 

October 2017: “To the Harvey Weinsteins of the World” is published in Vogue

“To the Harvey Weinsteins of the World,” an article authored by eminent journalist Priya Ramani is published in the Vogue magazine. It was in October 2017, that the New York Times published an article detailing decades of allegations of sexual harassment against film producer Harvey Weinstein. The BBC reported that Weinstein issued an apology acknowledging he “caused a lot of pain”, however he “disputes allegations he harassed female employees over nearly three decades.” Ramani’s article was addressed to “Dear Male Boss” and detailed the harassment she faced as a 23-year-old junior journalist. The gut-wrenching article, which triggered memories of sexual harassment in many survivors, went viral, and is still available to read online. It has also served as a ready reckoner for women, and men, to recognise signs of sexual harassment in the workplace and report the predators.

Related:

AIDWA Demands Resignation of Minister of State for External Affairs, M J Akbar

Defamation case filed by MJ Akbar to continue before Special MP-MLA Court

MJ Akbar vs Priya Ramani: Court asks if there is a possibility of a settlement

The post MJ Akbar vs Priya Ramani: Pronouncement of judgment deferred till Feb 17 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.