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.
Delhi High Court to hear the appeal filed by Gitanjali Angmo, wife of activist Sonam Wangchuk, challenging a single judge order rejecting her plea to discharge Wangchuk from Safdarjung Hospital and transfer to Medanta Hospital.
The matter is listed before Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia.
From the government's side, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, ASG Chetan Sharma and standing counsel Ashish Dixit will appear.
Senior advocate Akhil Sibal is likely to appear on behalf of Angmo.
Can a law graduate be denied enrollment as an advocate merely because there is a pending criminal case against them? Supreme Court hears
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and R Mahadevan
The case concerns KR Sudersan, a Chartered Accountant by profession who also completed his law degree. When he applied to enroll as an advocate, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry rejected his application. The Bar Council cited a pending criminal case against him involving Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) read with Section 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Bar Council's rejection was rooted in a 2017 judgment by the Madras High Court. That order had directed Bar Councils to prevent the enrollment of law graduates with pending criminal cases. It was intended to be a "temporary measure" to keep people with criminal backgrounds out of the profession until the legislature amended the laws.
Supreme Court hears plea by Delhi Police against Delhi High Court’s decision to allow Devangana Kalita, an accused in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, to inspect the unrelied documents in malkhana - a secure storage room or warehouse inside a police station where physical evidence and seized properties are stored.
Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi
ASG SV Raju (for Delhi Police): inspection is not warranted. She is not entitled to any documents till the charges are framed. What is the purpose of inspection at this stage? This is unrelied upon documents. I’ve got extracts of judgements on this point. Only prosecution documents are to be looked at.
Raju: please have a look at the Sarla Gupta judgement. Trial starts after charges are framed. Before commencement of trial they have no right to inspect. Trial has not started now. Suppose she is discharged, where’s the question of inspection?
CJI: There is lack of uniformity in facilities for retired judges. Some states are giving all that is needed. But some states do nothing at all
Justice Bagchi: Security of one police officer for five years is reasonable for a high court judge..because they deal with sensitive issues also.
CJI: See the clause Rs 15,000 for secretarial services, security, travel etc
Adv: Yes the multiplier is low. But we are giving 50,000 also
CJI to SG Mehta: The govt should constitute a committee.. the issue is some basic amenities to be provided for HC judges. There is a need for uniformity. Centre can prescribe some norms as centre also releases some funds. If centre does not constitute then we have to
CJI: It appears that the Union of India is also a rightful stakeholder, especially when we expect that a part of the differential burden ought to be shared by the Union and the States in a defined manner.
There can indeed be no doubt that these facilities must be ensured on a uniform basis, as there is no reason whatsoever for such amenities to vary from State to State.
Keeping this perspective in mind, we have impressed upon the Union of India to constitute a committee to lay down uniform guidelines and also the manner and mechanism for financial assistance.
Such a committee shall be constituted within two weeks. Thereafter, the committee shall submit its recommendations to the Union of India and also place the same before this Court within three months from the date of its constitution.
List this matter after three months.
Sr Adv Amit Sharma: On the last occasion, Your Lordships had directed all the High Courts to file affidavits indicating whether they were facing any difficulty pursuant to the directions passed by this Hon'ble Court. All the High Courts have filed their compliance affidavits.
I would only request that the learned Amicus prepare a compilation of those affidavits and place it before this Hon'ble Court, so that if any further directions are required, the Court may consider passing them
Delhi High Court to hear at 2:30 pm the plea filed by Gitanjali Angmo, the wife of activist Sonam Wangchuk, seeking to declare his confinement at Safdarjung Hospital as unconstitutional and permit transfer to a hospital of his choice.
The urgent hearing will take place before Justice Mini Pushkarna.
The hearing will commence at 3pm. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and Standing counsel Ashish Dixit are likely to appear.
Case of attack on a supreme court lawyer [Pankaj Sharma vs State of NCT]
AG R Venkataramani: I have said let him be taken to a government hospital. Let a medico legal report be taken so that his injuries can be ascertained. I acted in his best interest.
Sr Adv Vikas Singh: No as an attorney general you should have done more
CJI: There was a sharp object...
AG: That is what.. they say he brushed against a wall.. That is why I said medico legal report needed
Justice Bagchi: See intention is important in such cases and not the gravity of the injury. Injury is on a vital part of the body.
Sr Adv Singh: Status report is saying that a compromise is being forced.
Sr Adv Vikaas Pahwa: The accused RWA president is being protected by the local police
Singh: Crime branch should investigate...if section 109 is not attracted here then what else
Sr Adv Siddarth Dave: This lawyer regularly appears before this court.
Justice Bagchi: The investigating officer has to give the widest possible berth and then go for the medical opinion.
Adv: But arrest has to be there now
Justice Bagchi: Arrest? Why arrest ? Now next time you make an anticipatory bail plea..we will say arrest all accused
Adv laughs
Justice Bagchi; what are you all saying. You all are officers of this court