My article, my tweets are a matter of record, Priya Ramani begins.
Statement being recorded in question-answer form.
It is correct that my tweets pertained to Mr. Akbar, Ramani adds.
I spoke the truth. My tweet was not malafide, in bad faith, deeply offensive, maligning and spun out of lies, Ramani.
I cannot say if it affected his (Akbar's) standing before family and friends. My allegations are true. His complaint is false and baseless, Priya Ramani.
I began the article with my experience with Akbar. The subsequent portion was not about MJ Akbar. It refered to the experiences of other females with their bosses. My tweets did not become the basis of articles in internationally known newspapers and websites, Ramani.
Akbar is deliberately singleling out my tweets and article. The articles were in fact based on the collective account of many women, including me, who spoke out about their experiences at the hands of Akbar, Ramani.
It is false that my tweets affected Akbar's reputation. I spoke the truth and there was no deliberate attempt to harm Akbar's reputation, Ramani.
Sunil Gujral, Joyeeta Basu, Veenu Sandal, Habib Rehman and Tapan Chaki are all close personal or professional confidants of Mr Akbar. They were all motivated witnesses in this false case against me, Ramani.
My allegations were not against Akbar's reputation as a writer or an author. My allegations related to being sexually harrassed and his conduct as an editor of a daily newspaper. My words were not false or offensive, Ramani.
Akbar's complaint is false and the allegations made by me against him are the truth, Priya Ramani.
I do not know the details of Veenu Sandal's career. I cannot say if and when she read my tweets or what effect they had on her, Ramani.
Sandal's statement that she was deeply distressed to think that someone whom she had placed on a pedestal could do what I had alleged is her personal opinion and has no bearing on my case, Ramani.
It is false to state that Akbar's reputation was damaged. I don't know what interactions Akbar had with Sandal but my allegations are factual and the truth, Ramani.
I do not know the details of Tapan Chaki's career or his opinion about MJ Akbar. All the editor editors I have worked with in my 25 years of being a journalist have writing skills, administrative skills, are exacting and demanding when it comes to copy, schedule.., Ramani
There is nothing special about MJ Akbar, Ramani.
I do know when MJ Akbar saw and read my tweets or what react they had on him, Ramani.
It is false that MJ Akbar has an impeccable reputation, Priya Ramani.
I do not know the details of Sunil Gujral's acquaintance with Akbar. It is false that Akbar is a perfect gentleman holding good reputation in society, Ramani.
I do not know which colleagues and friends Mr Gujral spoke to to form his opinion about MJ Akbar. But many women including myself who have worked with Akbar have had a a different experience, Ramani.
Mr Gujral does not know me and cannot comment on my experience with MJ Akbar. All editors are hard working men and women.. there is nothing special about Akbar, Ramani.
I do not know if and when Mr Gujral read my tweets, Ramani.
It is false that I damaged MJ Akbar's reputation.
I don't know the details of Joyeeta Basu's professional career and details of her acquaintance with MJ Akbar, Ramani.
Joyeeta Basu's high regard of Mr Akbar is her personal opinion. It is false to say that Akbar was a complete professional, that he was held in high esteem in office or in the eyes of the world, Ramani.
There was nothing scandalous about my tweet. Ms Basu is a false witness and her tweet, supporting the complaint, the day after I tweeted shows that Akbar's reputation was not destroyed or irreparably harmed in her eyes, Ramani.
It is false of her to say that MJ Akbar's reputation was permanently destroyed. My tweets were not malicious as she says. I spoke the truth, Ramani.
I do not know about Manzar Ali's printer details, Ramani.
Q. Why is this case against you?
Ramani: This is a false and malicious case filed to create a chilling effect against women who spoke out about their experience of sexual harrassment at the hands of Mr Akbar. It is an attempt to intimidate me.
..by deliberately targetting me, Akbar seeks to divert the attention away from the serious allegations of sexual misconduct against him and the public outrage that followed, Ramani.
I will lead evidence in my defence, Ramani.
My defence is the truth, spoken in the public interest and for the public good. It's only now that sexual harrassment at the workplace is regarded as a serious offence, Ramani.
I would like to share my story in brief. I was 23 when MJ Akbar, the editor of a soon to be launched Asian Age newspaper called me to his hotel for a job interview. When I got there, I had expected the interview to be in the lobby or the coffee shop, Ramani.
..But Akbar insisted that I come up to his room. I was young, it was my first job interview, I didn't know how to refuse. I didn't know that I could set the terms of my interview, Ramani.
When I reached his room, it was an intimate space, essentially his bedroom.. I was deeply uncomfortable, felt unsafe at Mr Akbar's repeated, inappropriate personal questions, his offer of an alcoholic beverage, his loud singing of songs, his invitation to sit close to him, Ramani
Later that night, I called my friend Niofer and told her what had happened. In Oct 2017, the #MeToo movement in America emboldened countless women and share their experiences of sexual harrassment at workplace. In this context, I wrote a piece for Vogue magazine, Ramani.
The piece was addressed to and titled 'To the Harvey Weinsteins of the World' where I spoke about many women's experiences with many male bosses, Ramani.
One year later, when #MeToo came to India and many women in media started speaking up, I felt, as a senior journalist, my responsibility to remove the clock the annonymity. I decided to name him, Ramani.
I spoke the truth in public interest and in the context of the #MeToo movement. I finally had the courage and the platform to name MJ Akbar publically, Ramani.
MJ Akbar has filed a false case against me. He has deliberately targetted me to divert attention away from serious complaints against him. Through his testimony, Akbar feigned ignorance about my story and my truth, Ramani.
It is unfortunate that women who had faced sexual harrassment at workplace must now defend themselves in criminal proceedings for speaking the truth, Priya Ramani concludes.
Supreme Court to resume hearing today ED’s writ petition against former West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee and other State officials for their alleged interference in its probe and searches at the Kolkata offices of political consultancy firm I-PAC and its co-founder Pratik Jain.
@MamataOfficial
The hearing is adjourned.
Court: we will hear it after partial working days.
Justice PK Mishra: Mr. Kalyan Banerjee where are you?
Sr. Adv. Kalyan Banerjee: I am here virtually. The Hon’ble Chief Justice directed Monday and Friday will be in virtual, that’s why I’m in virtual.
Justice Mishra (in jest): he has permitted physically also now. Only for you the circular was changed. Now you have to appear personally.
Book launch: “The Constitution is my home” by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising.
CJI Surya Kant and Justice BV Nagarathna to shortly address the event.
Sr. Adv. Indira Jaising: CJI told me that has has been called out by the Prime Minister in relation to the BRICS judicial forum meeting.
Jaising’s discussion with senior journalist Sreenivasan Jain:
Jaising: the constitution is very personal home. In this country, the first question everyone asks is “Where are you from?” I found the answer. I said to myself I belong to the constitution of India.
Jaising: all governments regardless with which party they belong to have tried to shake the foundation of the constitution. The first time we saw it is when the emergency was declared. Currently also I believe that the constitution is under threat.
Court: the court has had detailed interaction with the parties. Today it considered what would be the immediate next step in the exercise undertaken in the present proceedings so as to take some real, effective steps on the ground.
Stray dogs case: Supreme Court to shortly pronounce verdict in its suo motu case to manage stray dog population across the country.
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria
The Court had reserved its verdict on January 29 after hearing the final leg of submissions made by various States, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI).
Court: we have divided the judgement into theee parts. We have given detailed consideration to applications seeking recall of Nov 7 judgement. We have dismissed all the applications.
Court: In para 85 we have concluded- this courts finds no reason to interfere with the Nov SOP by AWBI. The challenge does not merit acceptance in the light of conclusions herein above. All IAs challenging the SoPs stands dismissed.
BCI Chairman, Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra requests CJI led bench to constitute another
High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee similar to the one headed by former Supreme Court Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia to oversee bar council election disputes
#SupremeCourt
Sr Adv Kumud Lata Das: Let BCI not be a member of this committee.
Mishra: this is very very bad
Das: Don't raise your voice against me. You only want to make the women members subservient to you. Please don't shout at me. You are virtually a permanent chairman..from 2010 to 2026 you are the only one who can become the BCI Chairman
Mishra: these are absurd allegations.
CJI: We are constituting two more election tribunals.
Supreme Court today to pronounce judgment in a narco-terror case from J&K, where the accused has spent nearly five years in custody despite no contraband being recovered directly from him
#SupremeCourt
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan: this case raises an important question concerning the interface between Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. More particularly, the issue concerns the propriety of smaller benches progressively hollowing out the constitutional force of a larger bench decision without ever expressly disagreeing with it.
Then, after narrating the facts and the submissions, and also referring to two judgments in Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and gumfisha Fatima v. State, we have said in para 26:
There are two judgments of this Court which we need to deal with before proceeding ahead. These two judgments, Gurwinder Singh and gulfisha Fatima, have taken a somewhat divergent view from the clear, distinctive trajectory taken by this Court for grant of bail even under special enactments like TADA, UAPA, and NDPS.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan: A decision made by a bench of lesser strength is bound by the law declared by a bench of greater strength. Judicial discipline mandates that such binding precedent must either be followed in full, or in case of doubt, be referred to a larger bench. A smaller bench cannot dilute, circumvent, or disregard the ratio of a larger bench.
The position of law emerging from Najeeb and Sheikh Javed Iqbal is therefore clear. Watali cannot be invoked to justify indefinite incarceration of the accused under the UAPA.
For the aforesaid reasons, the attempt in gurminder to read Watali as laying down a general rule of denial of bail notwithstanding the period of incarceration is difficult to reconcile with this Court’s own subsequent clarification of what the ratio in Watali actually meant.
We also note that the bench in Gurwinder formulated the so-called twin-prong test governing grant of bail under the UAPA. It held that inquiry under Section 43D(5) must proceed in two sequential stages. First, whether the accusation is prima facie true, and second, only if the first question is answered in favour of the accused, whether ordinary bail considerations such as flight risk, etc. would justify the relief. If the first stage of the twin-prong test is satisfied against the accused, bail becomes absolutely impermissible.
With respect, this test flows neither from the text of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act, nor from Najeeb. In fact, on the contrary, it is in the case of Najeeb where it is categorically stated that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act provides no more than another possible ground, namely, that the accusations against the accused are prima facie true, for the competent court to refuse bail, in addition to the well-settled considerations like possibility of tampering with evidence, etc.