Bar and Bench Profile picture
Sep 8, 2020 168 tweets 20 min read Read on X
Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rouse Avenue to begin hearing MJ Akbar's criminal defamation case against Priya Ramani.

Senior Adv Rebecca John will continue her final submissions on behalf of Ramani.

#MeToo #PriyaRamani #MJAkbar
@mjakbar @IndiaMeToo Image
Judge Vishal Pahuja is hearing the matter virtually.

Court to assemble shortly.
On the last of hearing, I had taken the court through the statements..I had taken the defence of truth : John begins.

#PriyaRamani #MJAkbar #MeToo
Moving forward, the next important piece of material is my own Sec 313 CrPC statement : John
I don't have to read all questions.. this is specifically with respect to the unnecessary controversy: John reads Ramani's statement on the Vogue article not being entirely about MJ Akbar and pertained to male bosses.
John reads Ramani's statement on how the complaint was an attempt to intimidate those who had spoken against MJ Akbar.

John reads the Ramani's statement on her interview with MJ Akbar in Mumbai's Oberoi Hotel.
John reads her statement on how the Vogue article came to be.

I felt a responsibility to remove the cloak of anonymity: John reads Ramani's statement on how she decided to name MJ Akbar publically in the backdrop of the #MeToo movement in India.

I spoke the truth in public interest.. I was deliberately targeted to divert attention from the other serious allegations against MJ Akbar: John reads Ramani's statement
John now reads Ramani's statement as a defence witness.

John reads Ramani's professional profile.
John reads Ramani's statement on her interview with MJ Akbar at The Oberoi Hotel, Mumbai.
Mr Akbar asked me to come up to his room. I was silent.. I did not feel that I could dictate the terms of the interview: John reads Ramani's statement.
He asked me many personal questions.. he offered me an alcoholic beverage..I refused.. he started singing old Hindi songs.. He gestured to me to come sit next to him in the tiny space: John continues
John reads Ramani's statement on how she shared what had happened with her friend, Nilofer.

I swore I would never be in a room alone with him : John reads the statement on Ramani taking the job at the Delhi Office of Asian Age in January 1994.
I never worked with Mr Akbar again (after quitting in 10 months): John reads Ramani's statement.
I never named him in the Vouge article. The first four paragraphs were about what happened in the Oberoi Hotel in 1993: John reads
John reiterates that the remaining portion of the article were not about MJ Akbar but other male bosses.
The remaining portion is from other articles written about Harvey Weinstein: John reads
John reads Ramani's statement on her tweets and the allegations made by other women against MJ Akbar on Twitter.
Seeing all these women, I felt complelled to speak: John reads.

I never named him because he did not "do" anything. Sexual harrassment can be physical and verbal.. (Absense of anything physical) did not excuse him sexually coloured behaviour : John reads Ramani's statement
A predator is more powerful than his prey: John reads Ramani's statement
John reads Ramani's statement on how Nilofer WhatsApped her after the tweet.
Some women replied to my tweet, some wrote their own articles: John reads
On Oct 14, 2018, I learnt that Mr Akbar had returned from his foreign visit. By then more than 12 women had come out against him : John reads Ramani's statement.
I issued a statement after I learnt that Mr Akbar had filed a complaint against me

Several women who worked at the Asian Age from 1993-2011 said that they were willing to testify: John reads
It was important and necessary for women to speak up. Women are taught that silence is a virtue.. this case has come at a great personal cost. I have nothing to gain.. by keeping silence I could have avoided (at lot of trouble). But that would not have been right: John reads
At this point in time, it is stated that Ramani confided in Nilofer. After Ramani tweeted in Oct 2018, there was a WhatsApp exchange between Ramani and Nilofer: John
I will deal with the admissibility aspect: John
There are two messages from Oct 8, 2018 : John reads the message from Nilofer to Ramani
The message was contained in Ramani's phone which was examined by the court : John
The first tweet went up on October 8, 2018. It says "I began this piece with my MJ Akbar story..". From the very beginning, she made it clear that she only began the piece with her MJ Akbar story : John
If she wrote the entire article about MJ Akbar, she would have said so: John
This was at least 8 days before the complaint was filed. There is spontaneous corroboration of Ramani's truth : John on Niloger's message to Ramani on October 8.
This underlines the fact that a very serious offence that taken place: John on Nilofer remembering the incident which had happened 25 years ago
John reads Ramani's cross examination by Complainant counsel.
It (being a journalist) was not a so called dream. Asian Age was a good place to start that dream : John reads Ramani's cross examination statement on her applying at the Asian Age.
I am aware of the Vishakha guidelines: John reads Ramani's cross examination state
I am not aware of the sexual harassment law before the Vishakha guidelines in 1997: John continues to read Ramani's cross examination statement.
John continues to read Ramani's cross examination.
It is wrong to suggest that I made these allegations to maliciously malign his image : John continues to read.
John reads the Ramani's cross examination on her last tweet on "big victory" after Akbar's resignation.

I later realised that the news piece on Akbar's resignation was wrong : John reads Ramani's statement
My tweet was an honest mistake: John further reads
John reads Ramani's cross examination on her claim that apart from the first four paragraphs of the Vouge article, the remaining portion was taken from articles written by other people.
John reads Ramani's cross examination on deleting her Twitter account.
It is wrong to sugegst that by deleting my Twitter account I have interfered with the trial: John reads
John reads Ramani's cross examination on calling MJ Akbar a sexual predator.
John reads Ramani's cross examination on the number of retweets to her tweets on MJ Akbar.
It is wrong to suggest that I made the tweets recklessly : John continues to further read the cross examination.
Nilofer's message to me was not sent with the intention to fabricate false evidence : John continues to read.
The screenshot (of the message) is not tampered with : John reads.
It is wrong to suggest that I made the allegations with extraneous motives..: John reads
It was a long testimony. I would like to deconstruct and highlight certain aspects: John
Ramani is a journalist of eminence. She is no less eminent than MJ Akbar: John argues
She has deposed before the Court about the incident. She went to the Asian Age Office to submit her application because being a new newspaper, the opportunities were great: John
She asked Nilofer to meet her before the interview. She was 23. It was her first interview. Nilofer prepped her for the interview. She has given a detailed testimony on what happened once she entered the Hotel: John
She's silent and uncomfortable. Because if her young age, she doesn't know ..She gives a detailed account of the uncomfortable questions.. She fears for her physical safety and leaves the room. Then he tells her that somebody would get in touch with her: John
She shows as evidence of corroboration, the message she received from Nilofer hours after she tweeted. The message has very clear evidence of the events of Nov-Dec 1993: John
A bit of a stretch to say that the message was sent preemptively to form her defence in a criminal complaint: John
The title of the Vogue article is "To the Harvey Weinsteins of the World".. it is in plural : John
The first four paragraphs are on MJ Akbar and of course, look at the similarity : John
John reads the article.
The following paragraph begins with"all these years later, the world has changed but yoru species remains the same..": John
The phrases in inverted commas refer to other articles. She need not source it explicitly. It's journalism and not a PhD paper: John
Extracted portions are in inverted commas. Even in her tweet she says that she "began" the article with her MJ Akbar story: John
The article ends with "We will get you all one day".. she's talking about multiple women in the second last paragraph. Can there by any rationale basis for the allegation that complainant is making : John
When she is not denying that the first four paragraphs pertain to MJ Akbar, what stops her from saying that even the latter part was about Akbar: John
She has consistently said that only the first four paragraphs pertain to MJ Akbar: John
What Ramani says about the structure of the article should be the last word: John
She was not the first person to tweet about Akbar. She also a tweet on 6.10.2018 from Ghazala Wahab who is a defence witness. There were tweets by Shunali Kullar Shroff, Prerna Singh Bhindra: John
These are women in responsible positions, speaking responsibly: John
The predecessor Judge had himself seen Nilofer's message on Ramani's phone : John
She accepts that she made an honest mistake when she retweeted a wrong news article on MJ Akbar's resignation. At it turns on, he did resign a few days earlier: John
A lot is said on her issuing a corrigendum. It is irrelevant and does not make her an irresponsible journalist: John
I need nobody's permission to delete my Twitter account. It was not evidence in the case. It is my democratic and constitutional right to do so. I was not ordered by court to not do so: John
I will come state the law after witness: John
Court breaks for lunch.

Hearing to resume at 2.15 pm.
Hearing resumes.

#MJAkbar #PriyaRamani

John asks Court to take a look at her cross examination of MJ Akbar.

This is in context of the Vogue article. He says that it is self evident that the article is about the "Harvey Weinsteins" of the world: John
He says that it is self evident that Ramani tweeted that she "began" the article with her MJ Akbar story. He contradicts his assertion that the entire article was on him : John
Nilofer's testimony requires to be read. Both in law and in fact, her evidence is relevant and admissible.. There is sufficient corroboration of Priya Ramani's truth : John
John reads Nilofer's testimony.
Ramani's tweet called out the sexual harrassment at the hands of Me Akbar .. : John reads Nilofer's testimony before Court.

John reads Nilofer's statement on being with Ramani on the day of the incident.
John reads Nilofer's statement on the messages sent to Ramani on Oct 8, 2018.
I told my daughter that Priya had spoken out ..: John reads Nilofer's statement.
John reads Nilofer's statement on how she became friends with Ramani.
Priya and I landed in Mumbai together on 13.11.1993..: John reads
John reads Nilofer's statement on Ramani calling her to tell her about the interview with MJ Akbar at The Oberoi Hotel and the events that followed.
Well after dinner time, Priya called me on my landline. She sounded upset and distraught.. : John reads
She described feeling uncomfortable..: John continues
The details that she described were so bizzare that I had a picture of it in my mind : John reads
It was inexperience and naivety with which I said that she should take the job : John reads
John reads Nilofer's cross examination.
John reads Nilofer's statement on denying allegations of fabricating evidence in anticipation of legal action from MJ Akbar.
John finishes reading the cross examination.

Let's keep aside the whatsapp message. Let us look at what she has stated. She says that she and Ramani returned to India on the same flight and remained in touch : John
She says she was aware of the interview. She says Priya came to her mother's office. They were minutes away from the Hotel. She prepped her and left her .. she is not claiming to be an eye witness: John
Nilofer later receives a call. Her statement is relevant under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is know as res gestae: John
It forms part of the transaction : John
Her statements are interconnected with the facts in issue : John
John reads judgements to support her case.
John asks Judge Pahuja to refer to Surpreme Court's judgement in Kishan Kumar Malik vs State of Haryana.
Hearsay evidence becomes admissible under Sec 6. It must almost be contemporaneous with the act and immediately thereafter: John
When Ramani and Nilofer both say that they were together before the interview and shared the experience, Nilofer's evidence is admissible. Nilofer is a res gestae witness. Any objection should be rejected: John
It is in this context that her message on Oct 2018 should be seen when she says "OMG, OMG.. 25 years.." The WhatsApp evidence is of such supervisor quality that her statement is corroborated: John
Here is a witness of impeccable quality. A witness who is an achiever and does not have to lie : John
Here is a witness who is not shying away. Her tweet and evidence is of outmost important. She corroborates Ramani's truth: John
John stresses that the WhatsApp message was sent on the same day as the tweet was made by Ramani and was thus not an afterthought.
John reads another judgment passed by Delhi High Court.
Nilofer's evidence must be read to corroborate Ramani's truth. Her claims are corroborated by her Whatsapp message which was sent spontaneously to Ramani. To reject her evidence would defy all common sense : John
MJ Akbar suggested that the message of sent to create a defence. The suggestion of afterthought means that they are admitting that the message was indeed sent. Priya had shown the phone to Court: John
Ramani's stand is credible, reliable and she has not shaken on material facts. They shyed away from the Hotel incident. You can prove that he was not there that he never stayed at the Hotel. But they didn't because Ramani is speaking the truth: John
I have proved my truth. Nilofer's testimony cannot be rejected: John
During testimony, Nilofer said that she had her phone with her. But no examination of her mobile was done because the message is there: John
Much is said about the fact that message says "Nov - Dec 1993".. what is wrong with that? November they came back to India. It is my time period: John
Exception to Section 499 IPC talk of good faith. What is good faith? It is defined in IPC: John
The tweets were based on Ramani's own experience with MJ Akbar. Her experience is the fulcrum on which good faith rests. It is validated subsequently by the combined experience of multiple women making similar allegations: John
Ramani tweeted that 10 women painted the portrait of media's biggest sexual predator. It didn't end with these ten. Many were published after this tweet. One of which MJ Akbar said was a consensual relationship: John
This is her good faith: John reads Ramani's tweets.

Ramani has invoked part of Exception 9 because it was based on her own experience and that of multiple women who spoke publically: John
As per law, this good faith must also be for public good too.. Ramani said it was important for women to speak about about sexual harassment at workplace: John
John again reads Ramani's testimony.

Ramani hoped that the disclose would empower women and encourage them to speak up. Silence is not and option, she says : John
Speaking out on sexual harrassment at workplace is in public good. Whether is came 20 years later etc are issues that I would deal with. Can one contest that in October 2018, an avalanche took place in India : John
There cannot be a contest on the fact that this case revolves around a public question of great importance : John
John reads judgement in Vishakha case to show how the Surpreme Court first proceeded to deal with the issue of sexual harrassment at workplace.
The judgement was authored in 1997 when there were no legislative measures: John
A gap in the law was recognised by Surpreme Court in 1997. My incident is of 1993. Whom could have I complaint to? Supreme Court here urges the Parliament to enact a law : John

Can we say this issue is not something which doesn't touch upon public interest?: John
The seminal guidelines were formed which later formed the basis of a legislation: John
1997, SC framed Vishakha guidelines and said how women could not be submitted to this form of inequality. The legislature sat on it. In 2013, in Medha Kotwal happened: John
In Medha Kotwal, the Supreme Court noted that many women still struggled as a statutory law was not in law: John
Then came, with so kyuch judicial intervention, after 15 years, The Prevention of Sexual Harrassment at Workplace Act in 2013 : John
Parallely, the Indian Penal Code on amended: John
John refers to Section 354A IPC.

This was not in place in 1993. This makes the offence of sexual harrassment at workplace penal in nature: John
Questions were asked to Ramani if she was aware of the sections which existed at the relevant time : John

John reads Section 354 IPC.
Section 354 is Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
In the facts of Ramani's case, could she have invoked Sec 354? It's not tenable. As rightly stated, MJ Akbar didn't do anything. There was no overt physical act. Sec 354 require an overt physical act: John
Section 354A is different from Section 345 IPC.. Look at how much the law has changed from 1993: John
Legally, I could have not evoked sexual harrassment act because it was not in place. Section 354 IPC was inapplicable: John
There was no mechanism in place, even in courts: John
John reads Binu Tamta vs High Court of Delhi.
In 2014, in Binu Tamta, SC ordered constitution of Committees in High Courts to deal with the issue of sexual harrassment at workplace/courts. Later, in 2015, guidelines were adopted by Surpreme Court to deal with the issue: John
To simply say that do you know CEDAW, do you know Vishakha, do you know the law.. women fought a long battle. Asian Age certainty did not have the mechanism in 1993: John
This reinforces by plea of public good and public important. It shows the raft pace at which legislations came to be passed. The Act came in 1993 and IPC was amended to make sexual harrassment at workplace a penal offence: John
There was an absolute vaccum in 1993. This issues touches a public question and public good. Next landmark in the sphere was in 2018 when #MeToo movement began in India: John
On social media, women called out bosses who sexually harassed them. The importance of #MeToo cannot be underestimated whether the Court believes Priya's statement or not: John
I have established truth, public good, public interest and good faith before Court: John
They say I made these allegations because he's a member of a particular political party. The delay was on account of the fact that there was a vaccum in law and there was no platform either: John
I read Ghazala Wahab's experience. Women, at that time, were told to keep silent. It was a different world in 1993. I cannot say with confidence that that was a fair world. It took us all a lot of time to fight and establish out battles : John
John reads the last paragraph of Ramani's testimony.
I didn't do it for political motive. But even if I take the allegation at the highest, as per them, I waited 2 years since he joined the party to make the allegation. My accusations have to connection with his political journey: John
Have no connection*
Mr Akbar says he has a stellar reputation which was lowered by Ramani: John
John reads Akbar's testimony before Court.
Reputation and good reputation is central to their case. Well, it is not central to my case. I have said that all of this false: John
John reads Akbar's statement on Ghazala Wahab's article. Akbar had denied the allegations levelled against him.
Ghazala Wahab was brought as a witness to contest MJ Akbar's claim of stellar reputation. None of the averments by Akbar with respect to his stellar reputation can be sustained: John
John refers to the Firstpost article on 14 women making sexual harrassment allegations against MJ Akbar.
John refers to the articles written by Ghazala Wahab, Shutappa Paul, Kadambari Wade, Harinder Baweja, Shuma Raha.
It is a proved document. They exhibited it: John
MJ Akbar says that he had read the Firstpost article: John
There is a tacit admission without any refutation that this article carried disclosures of 14 women. It is not an evidence of stellar reputation: John
John refers to Akbar's statement on Pallavi Gogoi.
Akbar accepted that Gogoi was 23 years of age and subordinate to him. She made allegations of rape. I don't know if it's right or wrong. He claimed it to be a consensual relationship. It was a direct attack on his reputation: John
John refers to the testimonies of Akbar's witnesses.
Court asks John to continue on the next date of hearing.
Matter to be heard next on September 14.
If I don't conclude on September 14, I will definitely conclude on the date after that: John
Hearing concludes.
Could have kept silent, but that would not have been right: Priya Ramani in MJ Akbar’s defamation case [LIVE UPDATES from the final hearing]

#metoo #PriyaRamani #RebeccaJohn @mjakbar…
MJ Akbar has no stellar reputation; Priya Ramani's allegations validated by combined experience of multiple women: Sr Adv Rebecca John

#MeToo #PriyaRamani @mjakbar #rebeccajohn…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Bar and Bench

Bar and Bench Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @barandbench

Apr 16
Supreme Court to hear PIL seeking 100% tally of EVM votes with those of the slips from VVPATs.

#SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtOfIndia #EVM #EVM_VVPAT Image
Justice Sanjiv Khanna to Adv Prashant Bhushan: This was originally not listed today but we made sure (it was). We will try and take it up around 2pm.

Matter passed over for now.

Hearing starts

Bhushan: These are programmable chips. Most European countries have gone back from EVMs to paper ballots.

Justice Khanna: Don't go to that

Bhushan: It is not disputed, it is fact.

Read 27 tweets
Apr 12
Calcutta High Court bench led by Justice Joymalya Bagchi pulls up a junior advocate for coming to the court without the case papers and seeking an adjournment, in an alleged rape case.

Jr Adv: I am extremely sorry Milords.

J Bagchi: What sorry? Just write a letter to your client both you and your senior saying that the Judge was inclined to grant bail but because we were not prepared, you (accused) were not released on bail today. Please write that letter.

J Bagchi: Henceforth, do not come to this court or rather any court without the case papers. And don't say sorry to us. Me and my brother judge aren't in jail. But someone, presumably who has given valuable consideration to you and your senior is in jail. And the trust reposed in you and your senior is being betrayed here. That is the first lesson you learn as a junior. Never betray the client.

J Bagchi: Be always prepared. You spent 5 years in Law College, was it for the purpose of seeking adjournments.

Jr Adv: No Milords.

J Bagchi: Then tell your senior, sir if you send me to seek adjournment, give me papers and I should be atleast ready on facts. You couldn't degenerate yourself to the role of an adjournment lawyer. You must have self-respect and once start respecting yourself, your senior and everyone will start respecting you. Otherwise, no one will ever respect you.

Read 4 tweets
Apr 10

Delhi court rejects Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea to allow him to meet his legal team 5 times a week instead of just 2 meetings as granted currently.

Court says Kejriwal used his legal meets to dictate certain directions to be passed to Delhi Water Minister through counsel.

@AamAadmiParty @dir_ed #ArvindKejiwalImage
"The Applicant has failed to satisfy this court that he has been
using the two permitted legal meetings per week solely for
the purpose of discussing the pending litigations with his
counsels.   The status report/note filed by the Investigating
Agency   indicates   that   the   Applicant   had   dictated   certain
directions for being passed on to the Water Minister, to one
of his lawyers (whose name he refused to disclose to the
Investigating Agency) during the course of a legal meeting," the Court said in its order.
It adds,

"It thus appears that the Applicant is not even utilizing the permitted two legal interviews per week with his counsels solely for discussing his pending litigations and has rather used the allotted time for purposes other than legal interviews in the aforesaid manner."
Read 10 tweets
Apr 10
Supreme Court says it will "rip apart" State of Uttarakhand for sitting over misleading ads by Patanjali

Read key pointers from hearing here:

⚠️ Affidavits by Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna sent to media first and then the court

⚠️ Apology by Baba Ramdev not accepted, it is wilful disobedience of court

#SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtOfIndia @yogrishiramdev @PypAyurved #PatanjaliImage
⚠️ State of Uttarakhand licensing authority officers should be suspended right now

⚠️ SC says it will rip apart State licensing authority if bona fide argument is cited

⚠️ state kept eyes shut deliberately

⚠️ Patanjali waived thumb under nose of state authority and state kept mum

⚠️ Mockery of Supreme Court being made, SC judges are not in ivory towers
⚠️ State licensing authority acted as a post office while exchanging letters with Patanjali

⚠️ Directors who headed the state authority kept mum even though full page ads kept on being displayed

⚠️ Many people at risk who consumed these ayurvedic medicines thinking it is a cure to ailments which have no cure. "How can this be done to ordinary people?"
Read 5 tweets
Apr 10
Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna will again be physically present before Supreme Court today as it continues hearing case concerning misleading ads by Patanjali.

#SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtOfIndia @yogrishiramdev @PypAyurved #Patanjali Image
The duo and Patanjali Ayurved recently tendered a fresh apology in the matter.

Hearing to commence shortly, before a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah.

#SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtOfIndia #Patanjali Image
Read 39 tweets
Apr 9
[Liquor policy case]

Delhi High Court to shortly pronounce its judgement on Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest by ED and remand order passed by the trial court.

J Swarana Kanta to pronounce the order at 2:30PM.

#DelhiHighCourt #ArvindKejriwal @AamAadmiParty @dir_edImage
Kejriwal was arrested on March 21. The next day, the Rouse Avenue Court remanded him to ED custody.

On April 1, Kejriwal was sent to Judicial Custody till April 15.

He is presently lodged in Tihar Jail.
Kejriwal has argued that his arrest and remand are illegal.

He said that the central government is misusing the ED to arrest him on the eve of election and create a non-level playing field.
Read 35 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!