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 hear today plea by INC leader Pawan Khera challenging its stay on the transit anticipatory bail granted to him by the Telangana High Court in a forgery and criminal conspiracy case
Bench: Justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar
The top court had stayed the relief granted to Khera by the High Court on April 15.
SG Tushar Mehta (for Assam): there are new pleadings in the application.
Sr. Adv. AM Singhvi (for Khera): your lordships have been persuaded to pass an ex parte order. It’s a transit bail. It expires today. The court opens on Monday.
Court: see the document on page number 98. This document (Aadhar) you filed. On the basis of this document you are saying your address is different…
Singhvi: I am asking only for transit bail to be extended to Tuesday.
Court: why in Telangana? Why not in Assam?
Singhvi: I want transit bail till Tuesday so I can approach Assam. Telangana petition was filed in a hurry. In the arguments it was pointed out and a correct document was filed. My wife is an MLA candidate in Telangana. Her affidavit was filed on the same day. That is not pointed out. 100 police men are sent to Nizamuddin. There’s article 21 in this country. He doesn’t tell you that the correct document has been filed. This is all prejudice.
DAY 5: Supreme Court nine-judge bench to resume hearing reference arising from Sabarimala review pleas
Parties opposing the reference to continue submissions today
#Sabarimala #SupremeCourt
Adv MR Venkatesh appears for Atmatam Trust
#Sabarimala
Adv MR Venkatesh: My Lords, the first thing I would like to say is that the word religion in Article 25, religious practice in Article 25(2)(a), Hindu religious institutions under Article 25(2)(b), religious denomination under Article 26, and matters of religion under Article 26(2)(b), are all indeterminate and probably incapable of being defined. The word denomination, for instance, can be traced to the word denominatio in the Latin language, fortified by medieval Christianity, which allows the word denomination to be rooted to a particular denomination within the Christian religion, and it was picked up by the Irish Constitution, and we have adopted it.
So it has huge foreign roots, and to this extent these words have their own limitations in terms of our understanding. What gets compounded is that while Articles 25 to 28 have the roots of Article 44 of the Irish Constitution, Article 25(2)(a) in the way it is being read, and Article 25(2)(b), have no international precision. In that sense, Article 25(2)(a) and Article 25(2)(b) are sui generis and are rooted in Indian conditions, tailor made for certain Indian conditions. This requires interpretation and proper intervention of this Court.
Moreover, if there is a definition for denominational temples and a certain class of temples falls into denominational temples, then what happens to non denominational temples. Do they have no rights. Do they have no protection under the Constitution. And how do we deal with non denominational temples. The way it has been interpreted by law, and I will demonstrate very shortly, the problem is that all this becomes a sort of public place, which is equated to a car, railway station or a bus stand, where anybody can enter and anybody can leave.
And then it would seem that the Jehovah Witness case has been relied upon heavily in the formulation of Article 25. Originally proponents of what I would say is the doctrine under Article 25(1), which deals only with what I would say is that even on a mere reading, as Mr Sundaraman pointed out, it should shock the conscience of the Court.
Bombay High Court hearing Anil Ambani's suit against Republic TV, its editor Arnab Goswami, and others asks why the matter can't be resolved.
Court: Why can't this entire matter be resolved? Why must a truth like this lie? I mean, putting egos and tempers and all aside.
@republic #BombayHighCourt #AnilAmbani
Adv Mayur Khandeparkar for Ambani: In fact, when this matter was last opened for the previous bench, the previous bench said the most aptly that nobody is taking away your right..
Court: It's always very comforting for a judge to be told that the previous bench said the most aptly... (laughs)
Khandeparkar: The phrase was 'no hitting below the belt'. Nobody is taking away the journalistic freedom of reporting an aspect, as a matter of fact. But to use words like, 'I am some kind of a fraudster, calling me stupid'... All kinds of words and adjectives that don't come within the ambit of journalistic freedom. Nobody is stopping you from projecting an instance.
#BombayHighCourt
Sr Adv Mahesh Jethmalani for Republic: I'll justify each and every statement that I have made. My defense is one of justification and fair comment. There is nothing I have said which is disparaging. I have gone by the record.
Court: There are orders of the court calling the plaintiff a fraudster?
Jethmalani: Yes. They have gone in appeal. They restricted that challenge to the fraudster business only to the penalty amount and not under the binding case.
Court: Also, the manner in which this is conveyed is also crucial. To wave your finger and call someone a fraudster or to report.. There is a fine line. So really, if both maintain a balance and maintain decorum... There are two matters of defamation similar. Temporarily, things flare up. Things do get heated, get out of control. But there is a manner in which things are done.
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S Oka to shortly speak on: Robes cannot be Rented
Organised by Adhivakta Parishad Supreme Court Unit
#SupremeCourt
Justice Abhay S. Oka: When one becomes a judge of a court, any court, and in particular High Court and Supreme Court, apart from Bangalore Principles, apart from any other written norms, the judges are bound by several constraints and restrictions.
Obviously, all those restrictions come in for the purpose of maintaining dignity of the office and upholding the old principles that justice should not only be done, but it should be manifestly seen to be done.
And whether Bangalore Principles or not, we are bound by those constraints.
Justice AS Oka: For example, if as a sitting judge, I was invited by Adhivakta Parishad to speak on its platform, I would have politely said no because my belief was Adhivakta Parishad does have political inclinations.
When a judge demits office, of course, he is not bound by those strict constraints and restrictions which he had as a judge, but I personally believe that being a retired judge of the constitutional court, he must follow certain restraints and constraints. @AdhivaktaP
Supreme Court to hear today plea filed by Assam government challenging the transit anticipatory bail granted to INC leader Pawan Khera in a forgery and criminal conspiracy case
Bench: Justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar
The case was registered against Khera following his recent claims that Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife Riniki Bhuyan holds multiple foreign passports and undisclosed assets abroad.
SG Tushar Mehta (for Assam): it’s a case of patent lack of territorial jurisdiction. No averment in the petition why telangana high court. Offence committed in Assam, FIR in Assam. Neither he says why Telangana.
Court: he is saying petitioner wife is staying in Hyderabad.
Mehta: he places on record Aadhar card in page 98 where wife is staying in Delhi. He places both. Which shows even his wife stays in Delhi. Sometimes he keeps travelling. Is this the law? Someone can buy or rent 10 properties in 10 different states. This will qualify as forum choosing. This is abuse of law.
"Direct and serious appearance of conflict of interest."
Arvind Kejriwal files an affidavit in the Delhi HC stating that since Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma's children are panel counsel for the Central government, she should recuse from the excise policy case.
@AamAadmiParty
@ArvindKejriwal
@CBIHeadquarters
Kejriwal says that since Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appears for CBI in the excise policy case, and he also allocates cases to the panel counsel, this gives rise to a "direct and serious appearance of conflict of interest".
Kejriwal has also raised objections to his not being given an opportunity to make a rejoinder submission in his recusal application.
He says that he left the Court at around 3:45 PM after seeking leave of the Court and had no reason to expect the matter would continue substantially beyond the court hours.