Thread by @VakashaS

At Rouse Avenue Court for the #MJAkbar criminal defamation case against #PriyaRamani .

Today, Rebecca John will continue to conduct the examination-in-chief of @priyaramani , ie, recording her statement and evidence.

Will be tweeting LIVE for @TheQuint

You can catch all the developments from the previous hearing on Saturday along with updates from today here @TheQuint

thequint.com/news/india/akb…

Judge Samar Vishal is here, as are the lawyers, led by Rebecca John for #PriyaRamani and Geeta Luthra for #MJAkbar .

Luthra raises certain objections from last hearing about the exhibition of certain documents. Judge doesn't agree.

Now @priyaramani resumes. @TheQuint

#PriyaRamani concludes her statement explaining why she felt it was necessary to say what she did and that she has spoken the truth at great personal cost.

My colleague @GarvitaKhybri has the full statement here @TheQuint

https://twitter.com/GarvitaKhybri/status/1170953697657946112?s=19

The cross-examination by Geeta Luthra now begins.

"Who were the other journalists who you grew up looking up to?" asks Luthra.
@TheQuint

Ramani names a few including @shammybaweja . Luthra asks for more examples. Ramani says there were others but can't remember exactly.

@TheQuint

"Which newspapers did you read growing up and in your student days?" asks Geeta Luthra, representing #MJAkbar .

Ramani names the newspapers she read growing up in Bombay. @TheQuint

"Which articles did you write from January to October 1994 for the Asian Age?" asks Luthra.

#PriyaRamani says she did dry run articles during her 10 days in Delhi, after moving to the Bombay office she did a number of reports on the Bombay Stock Exchange. @TheQuint

Luthra asks for the titles of the articles. Ramani says she doesn't remember the headlines.

Luthra keeps asking for specifics, objects to inclusion of the reference to the dry run articles. @TheQuint

Next, Luthra asks how many articles #PriyaRamani wrote at Asian Age. @priyaramani says she wrote almost an article a day as she was the only business correspondent at the Bombay office of the Asian Age. @TheQuint

Luthra asks her now about her stint at Reuters. How long, when she started what articles did she write and what we're their headlines.

@priyaramani says she worked there for 3 and a half years. At Reuters, she did daily stock reports. @TheQuint

Luthra asks for exact joining date. #PriyaRamani says she doesn't remember, but may have the joining letters at home, may be able to bring these at the next hearing. Says would have been around November 1994. @TheQuint

Luthra now asks her about her stint at Elle magazine. Asks for her joining date. #PriyaRamani says she doesn't remember any of her joining dates, will try to bring her joining letters at next hearing.

"Name five important articles you wrote there?" @TheQuint

#PriyaRamani says she was deputy editor, so wrote a lot less, mostly her responsibilities included conceptualising the issue, editing articles by juniors.

Luthra interrupts, says this is irrelevant. @priyaramani says it is relevant as it explains her responsibilities. @TheQuint

Judge says Luthra can't tell the witness how to answer questions.

@priyaramani continues, says she wrote some articles but can't remember headlines. She says she can submit the articles at the next hearing. @TheQuint

Luthra then asks the same questions about #PriyaRamani 's stint at Cosmopolitan.

"Don't you want to know about my time at India Today?" asks Ramani.

Luthra says no. Asks for joining date and 5 articles for Cosmopolitan. @TheQuint

Ramani says she doesn't remember the exact dates. Say she wrote an edit article in each issue of Cosmopolitan, can provide copies of these to court at the next hearing.

Luthra says these weren't articles, #PriyaRamani says she doesn't understand what Luthra is asking. @TheQuint

Luthra says these were columns, not articles. @priyaramani says they were not news and features articles.

Luthra then asks when Ramani finished her course and what she did after, how she applied for jobs. @TheQuint

#PriyaRamani says she finished her course in June 1993. She did a fellowship, spent some time in Philadelphia, did not apply for a job before finishing her studies.

Luthra asks which companies she applied to. @TheQuint

#PriyaRamani says there weren't a lot of opportunities. She was told TOI would pay Rs1000 to anyone who joined regardless of education, made them a trainee.

A friend told her Asian Age was hiring, so she applied there, hadn't applied anywhere else. @TheQuint

Geeta Luthra starts putting forward suggestions to be answered by #PriyaRamani

"I put to you that your so called dream of becoming a journalist was not contingent on being hired by The Asian Age." @TheQuint

#PriyaRamani objects to this being termed a "so called dream". Says it was a good opportunity to realise the dream.

Luthra asks if her dream of being a journalist would have ended if ahe hadn't got a job at Asian Age. @TheQuint

Ramani says no. Rebecca John objects to this hypothetical question. @TheQuint

Luthra suggests that the interview with #MJAkbar as described by @priyaramani never happened, that she "maliciously and intentionally concocted this story to damage Mr Akbar's reputation" and that her tweets were false news.

#PriyaRamani denies all these suggestions @TheQuint

#PriyaRamani tries to explain why she put out her tweet in the conext of the #MeToo movement.

Luthra objects, says only yes/no answer can be given.

Judge Samar Vishal: "If you don't allow the witness to give her answers, this whole trial will be vitiated." @TheQuint

#MJAkbar criminal defamation case against #PriyaRamani UPDATE

Court breaks for lunch, cross-examination of @priyaramani to resume at 2:15 pm. @TheQuint

Case resumes.

Geeta Luthra for #MJAkbar continues to cross-examine #PriyaRamani

"Do you know that the criminal laws of India, including the Indian Penal Code, have always had a provision for sexual harassment, since its enactment in 1860?", she asks. @TheQuint

#PriyaRamani says she's aware of the Vishakha Guidelines which were developed by Supreme Court in the 90s, but not of the provisions of the IPC on sexual harassment. @TheQuint

Luthra: I put it to you that there has always been provisions for sexual harassment in the IPC.

@priyaramani : I am not aware of this.

Luthra then asks her if she's aware of the Supreme Court' 1997 judgment on the lines of the CEDAW provisions on sexual harassment. @TheQuint

The judge notes this is the #Vishakha case. #PriyaRamani says she is aware of the Vishakha case and it's Guidelines.

Luthra asks if she knows about the bill for a sexual harassment law was introduced in 2012.

Ramani says she knows about the SH law passed in 2013. @TheQuint

Luthra reiterates that the criminal law has provisions that deal with sexual harassment. Rebecca John says this is a repetition. Luthra says she needs to point out there was law against SH before 2013.

Judge points out that the POSH Act 2013 is not a criminal law. @TheQuint

Luthra asks if #PriyaRamani was aware of allegations of sexual harassment before 2013.

@priyaramani says she was aware of cases of abuse and street harassment. @TheQuint

Luthra asks her if she knows of the allegations of sexual harassment against an editor in 2013, clarifies this is the Tejpal case.

#PriyaRamani says she is aware. @TheQuint

Luthra then asks if she was aware of any other women coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment at work 2013.

Ramani says she would need to know specifics.

Luthra asks if she was aware of women "finding their voices" to make such allegations at the time.

@TheQuint

#PriyaRamani says many women spoke up after the Nirbhaya case. Media may have referred to this as women finding their voice.

Luthra produces an article titled "Sorry Boss, We Have Found Our Voices" from Nov 2013. She asks @priyaramani if she wrote this article. @TheQuint

#PriyaRamani asks for a copy of the article, says she thinks she wrote it.

Luthra says that in this article, @priyaramani did not mention #MJAkbar .

She then asks if Ramani was aware that Akbar joined the BJP in 2014. @TheQuint

Luthra asks if #PriyaRamani was aware that #MJAkbar became a minister in 2016. Ramani says this was a matter of record.

On being asked, @priyaramani confirms she named Akbar in 2018. @TheQuint

Luthra suggests that #PriyaRamani made these allegations "maliciously" to defame #MJAkbar.

She suggests that @priyaramani had multiple opportunities to call out his sexual harassment earlier, but only brought them out later with the intent to harm Akbar. @TheQuint

Ramani says all these suggestions are incorrect. When she tries to add some additional context to an answer, Luthra objects, saying she can't say anything more when these suggestions are put to her.

Judge agrees to Ramani volunteering this information later @TheQuint

Luthra now puts forward suggestions relating to the Vogue article by #PriyaRamani in 2017.

Ramani reiterates what she's said earlier, that as she said in her 2018 tweet, the Vogue article began with her sexual harassment story about #MJAkbar. @TheQuint

Luthra is suggesting that the Vogue article by #PriyaRamani never made a distinction between the paras in which she was referring to #MJAkbar and the paras where she was talking about generic cases of sexual harassment.

@priyaramani says this is incorrect. @TheQuint

#PriyaRamani reiterates that her tweet clearly says she "began" her Vogue article with her #MJAkbar story. First 4 paras deal with him.

Luthra asks if @priyaramani submitted any document/exhibit after her Oct 2018 tweet in which she had emphasised the distinction. @TheQuint

#PriyaRamani says there is no other document. She tries to point out that when the generic section starts in the article, she refers to the species not learning, which shows its different.

Not added at this stage. @TheQuint

Now Luthra tries to use a reply/comment to #PriyaRamani 's 2018 tweet by some random person to show that people thought the whole Vogue article was about #MJAkbar .

Rebecca John objects, Judge accepts the objection. @TheQuint

Luthra keeps trying to suggest that the "common man" when reading the Vogue article and tweets would think the entire article referred to #MJAkbar .

Rebecca John objects, Judge Samar Vishal agrees that @priyaramani is not hear to testify for the common man. @TheQuint

Ramani says it's incorrect to "suggest that my tweets and article lowered the reputation of Mr Akbar in the estimation of the general public and right thinking members of society"

Luthra says that since they have a different line of questions to pursue, will stop now. @TheQuint

#MJAkbar criminal defamation case case #PriyaRamani UPDATE:

Hearing concludes for the day. To resume on 24 and 25 October.

After cross-examination of @priyaramani concludes, other defence witnesses to be examined.

@TheQuint