Bar and Bench Profile picture
Sep 14, 2020 111 tweets 13 min read Read on X
Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rouse Avenue to soon 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
Virtual hearing begins.

#MJAkbar #PriyaRamani
@IndiaMeToo
I had gone on the issue of reputation on the last hearing: John begins

#MJAkbar
MJ Akbar had produced witnesses on the aspect of reputation: John
John reads the testimony of witness Veenu Sandal.
Sandal had said that not once had someone raised a finger against MJ Akbar.
"I was shocked and it came as a huge jolt to me..": John reads.
"His image had been dented not only on my eyes but the eyes of others..He told me that there was no truth in the allegations of Ramani..": John continues
John points out that Sandal, in her cross examination, had agreed that she had never met Priya Ramani.
John continues to read Sandal's testimony.
John reads the cross examination.
John reads the testimony of witness Tapan Chaki.
"Friends and family said that the allegations wer unbelievable..": John reads Chaki's statement.
John reads Chaki's cross examination.
John reads the testimony of witness Sunil Gujral.
John reads Gujral's cross examination.
John reads the testimony of witness Joyeeta Basu.
John reads the cross examination of Basu.
These are the witnesses who testified: John says as she urges the Court to see Explanation 4 of Section 499 IPC.
For the offence to be complete, the complaint must plead publication and his lowering of reputation, he must also show that it has been lowered in the eyes of others: John
Most of them said that the damage to reputation was because of Ramani's tweets but we're disconnected to the tweets by other women. It is not possible that they did not read the avalanche of allegations against Mr Akbar: John
By quoting only Ramani's tweets, an inference can be drawn that they are lying. The witness were devoted to Mr Akbar. One said they shared a guru-shishya relationship: John
The lowering o reputation in the eyes of others must remain. They cannot do this evidence which is not in conformity with the explanation. They briefly felt shocked and later felt okay after talking to him: John
Joyeeta Basu's testimony has to be discarded. She's asking him to take action against Ramani soon after the tweets: John
Sunil Gujral talks about how close he his to Akbar. He doesn't deby giving him close. These witnesses are close professional and personal associates: John
The witnesses do not comply with Explanation 4 to section 499 IPC: John
Even assuming otherwise, it is still not defamation if the court holds that I have fulfilled the requirements of exceptions 1, 9 read with 3: John
The witnesses are unreliable as they are interested parties. They pleaded ignorance of allegations by other journalists. They selectively deposed against Ramani: John
They had no personal knowledge about her truth. So what are they testifying against? None of them have met me. They don't know about my incident or have worked with me: John
How can you therefore contest my allegations: John
These witnesses testified for fulfilling the legal requirements. I produced a witness, Ghazala Wahab. There was contestation regarding her relevance: John
This witness does not corroborate my incident. She was brought because I am contesting Mr Akbar's claim of having impeccable reputation: John

John reads the testimony of Ghazala Wahab.

#MJAkbar #PriyaRamani
John reads Wahab's testimony on how she was sexually assaulted by MJ Akbar when she worked at the Asian Age.

Asian Age had no mechanism for sexual harrassment complaints.. I realised I was on my own : John reads
"Ms Veenu Sandal told me that Mr Akbar was in love with me..", John continues to read.
"I did not write about it from 1998 to 2018 because I wanted to put it behind me": John reads.
John reads Wahab's statement on finally tweeting about her experience in October 2018 in the backdrop of #MeToo movement.
"I felt that the #MeToo movement gave a platform to women outside the legal framework..": John reads.
John reads her cross examination.
Reputation was claimed by them and it is a fact in issue. When they say that Akbar is a man of impeccable reputation, I have every right to refute it: John
I have every right to refute when their witnesses say that they had no knowledge of allegations against Mr Akbar. I have every right to refute when Sandal says that Wahab's story is false: John
Wahab wrote the article 5 days before the Complaint. Reputation is a fact in issue : John
The notice framed against me says that I lowered the reputation of Mr Akbar. Do I not have the right to contest that?: John
Wahab have her own account, in her own words. How is it hearsay? It is completely wrong to say it is irrelevant. Ghazala Wahab and Priya Ramani were never friends, nor do they claim to be: John
Why would Wahab come to court and give this very painful testimony: John
Where has the complainant provided any explanation as to why Ghazala would support Priya. Ghazala's testimony is without any motive. There was no case against her. It was an act of courage: John
I did not introduce her out of the blue. Each and very allegation made against Mr Akbar was put to him : John
This defence is not jerky. It is being consistent. We are not basing our defence of denial, lack of memory. We have an affirmative defence: John
These are women with impeccable reputation. Look at the books Wahab has written. Her testimony has to be considered and cannot be thrown out : John
John refers to judgements to support her case.
Evidence of general reputation and disposition is relevant is criminal law : John reads a Supreme Court judgement.
relevant in*
A very powerful statement of Ghazala was that I don't want any revenge. She did it to empower other women: John
John continues to read the judgment.
The complainant's plea of stellar reputation is a fact in issue. Thus, any evidence to rebut this claim is admissible under section 9 of Indian Evidence Act: John
Defence witness have disproved the claim that Mr Akbar had stellar reputation: John
John reads a Kerala HC judgement.
Wahab's tweet is dated Oct 6, 2018 . Ramani first tweeted on October 8, 2018. Wahab said 'I wonder when would the floodgates would open against MJ Abar': John
Wahab's conversation with her friend on telling her Akbar story is dated Oct 9, 2018. The Wire article is dated Oct 10, 2018: John
John reads the comments to Wahab's articles. This was before the Complaint was filed. There was a WhatsApp group where women commented. Rachna Grover said that Wahab's incident was true: John
Rachna Grover came in the pre summoning evidence on behalf of MJ Akbar. But she was dropped in the post summoning evidence: John
Wahab wrote a rejoinder after Akbar replied to her story: John
Even the refuttal of Mr Akbar was not put to Wahab in cross examination. There seems to be great anxiety in touching the two incidents of Ms Ramani and Ms Wahab. There were no questions on the hotel incident or Wahab's allegations: John
I put to Mr Akbar each and every allegation made against him. The allegations were from an article that was submitted by him. Reputation is central to the case. Priya spoke her truth on oath: John
It doesn't matter what the character witness say. Ghazala Wahab came with her story to direct refute the reputation claim: John
Reputation is a fact in issue: John
Pallab Gogoi wrote in Washington Post. I put it to him. I put the statements made by him and his wife .. Mr Akbar said it was consensual. A person claiming impeccable reputation is having a consensual relationship with a junior while being married to someone else: John
I don't need to go into the allegations. There is an admission that something happened. Except the claim is that it was consensual: John
Mr Akbar's admission contradicts the claim of all his witnesses who said that he was a thorough professional: John
Court breaks for lunch.

Hearing to resume at 2.30 pm.
Hearing resumes.

#MJAkbar #PriyaRamani
I would like to cite 2-3 judgements: John begins.
How does the law treat admissions?: John reads a Surpreme Court judgment.
The court may take judicial notice of the fact that 14 women either tweeted or have account of sexual harrassment. It is a document that the complainant proved and he said that he has read it: John
The court may take judicial notice of the infirmities in Mr Akbar's deposition: John
In my cross examination, I reminded him (Akbar) of his previous political history which he did not disclose: John
Complainant wants us to believe that he didn't have full details of the tweets as he was in Africa. In the evidence of Joyeeta Basu, this is falsified: John
Basu said that Mr Akbar thanked her on 10.10.2018 for her tweet in solidarity with him and she told him to take legal action. All this is while he is still in Africa: John
Akbar says that he doesn't remember meeting Priya Ramani. The proceedings were taken up the next day and he became wiser. At various points, he does remember. He remembered her age. The memory lapse was selective: John
With respect to most other women, he says he doesn't remember. There is an incident with respect to a foreign woman. He denied it, denies the content of the email: John.
Priya Ramani was targetted selectively..either everyone's articles and tweets are defamatory or none is. Or are the other allegations accepted? : John
John reads Akbar's statement that he was aware of the existence of other allegations on the date of the filing of complaints.

He chose to go after Priya Ramani. Till date there is no complaint against anyone else: John
Akbar has denied that the complainant was filed to create an overall chilling effect: John

John reads Ramani's statement.
It does beg the question why Priya Ramani? Why not other women? While the court examines the merits, the court must see that I was part of a collective who called him out. I wasn't even the first person: John
Priya Ramani was selectively targetted to halt the avalanche of allegations that came out against him at that time: John
John begins her submissions on standard of proof in a defamation case.
John reads a Surpreme Court judgment.
John refers to Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act on burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions.
Sec 105 says that the burden of proving that the case falls within an exception shall be on the person claiming it: John
The nature and extent of this burden is not to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Law treats the onus as discharged if the accused can prove preponderance of possibility. The onus then shifts to the complainant: John
The complainant has to prove "beyond reasonable doubt". Accused claiming exceptions has to prove "preponderance of probability": John
While I plead truth, public good.. the standard of proof is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The standard on them is proof beyond reasonable doubt. This is the judgment of Supreme Court in a defamation case: John
The two sets of evidence have to be considered differently: John
I have pleaded ab exception and I have consistently tried to prove the exception, they cannot say it is per se defamation: John
Look at the lengths to which I have gone to prove my case.. although law requires me to prove it on preponderance of probability, I have proved my case beyond reasonable doubt : John
John reads another judgement.
John reads an Allahabad High Court judgement.
John reads KM Nanavati judgement.
This was last jury trial case in India: says John says she continues to read the judgement on the applicability of section 105 Evidence Act.
The burden of prosecution to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt does not shift : John continues to read.
Assuming that the court does not fully believe Ramani but if the court feels that ingredient of reputation has been successfully pleaded, it is enough. I need not prove each and every ingredient of the exception. The onus on them never shifts: John
John reads another Supreme Court judgement.
In defamation cases, it is not enough to say it is defamation per se. Once I have pleaded defence, I have discharged the burden imposed on me : John
Evidence has to be which is to be believed by a prudent man: John
The test is of test of a prudent man, test of preponderance of probabilities..this is not the law that I have created. It is the law of the land: John
John reads section 499 IPC.
The first exception itself says there is no generic formula of defamation per se: John
The whole thing shifts once I plead a defence. At the stage of notice itself, I pleaded my defence: John
When I was cross examining, everything that I said was objected to..I will deal it if the court gives me an hour: John
Court proceeds to adjourn the matter.
Court adjourns hearing till September 19.
"A person claiming impeccable reputation is having a consensual relationship with a junior while being married to someone else"

Read arguments from today's hearing -
@mjakbar @IndiaMeToo

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…

• • •

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!

PDF

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

Aug 23
Goa High Court Bar Association felicitates Chief Justice of India BR Gavai

CJI BR Gavai: Now the registry examines and only in very rare matters we permit oral mentions in the Supreme Court of India. The sitting at Goa as a part of division bench, like in SC you don't know which case is next, in Goa we had variety of litigation...whether it be mining or personal laws.Image
CJI: I won't detain you all for long. For Goa standards, 7:30 pm is for something else.
CJI: I had decided that I will accept felicitations only at places where I was a member of the Bar or have worked there. This felicitation was to happen on July 19...and was to be the last one.
Read 10 tweets
Aug 22
Supreme Court hears appeal against Allahabad HC order upholding the trial court’s order permitting a court-monitored survey of the Sambhal Masjid

Justice PS Narasimha: It is being argued that this case has to be seen from the lens of Places of Worship Act, 1991

Adv Vishnu Shankar Jain: Just by saying that the act is attracted does not attract the 1991 act.Image
SC: Question is survey arising out of 1991 act or the ASI act..

Sr Adv Huzefa Ahmadi: They say 1991 act does not apply..HC says there is no bar..I am in appeal and in meanwhile all surveys were stated.

Jain: On the face of it

Justice Narasimha: Yes you have a point that it is not concerned with 1991 act.. and HC gave finding against the Muslim side.. so we need to hear this.. the challenge is pending here...
SC: Mr Jain appearing for Respondent 3 to 8 takes notice of the SLP. It is surprising as to how two appeals have been filed by the same parties.

Jain: In court 4 item 10 has been dismissed.

Ahmadi: it is the mathura case...

SC: we were about to issue notice.

Justice Narasimha: Let us take a look at court 4 item 10 order.. we do not want to pass inconsistent orders. Let it be listed on Monday.
Read 4 tweets
Aug 22
Supreme Court to resume hearing the Bihar SIR case today

Earlier the top court had asked the Election Commission of India @ECISVEEP to upload online the list of 65 lakh voters proposed to be deleted during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision

#SupremeCourt #BiharSIR_2025 Image
Sr Adv Rakesh Dwivedi for the Election Commission of India: We have complied with it letter and spirit. Apart from BLA and panchayat we have also pasted this outside police stations.

#SupremeCourt #BiharSIR_2025
Dwivedi: Anyone wrongly excluded can file form with supporting documents.

Adv Prashant Bhushan: they have complied with the direction but the problem which has arisen

Dwivedi: Please see para 3.
Read 22 tweets
Aug 22
Supreme Court to shortly pronounce judgment on petitions seeking stay on suo motu directions passed Justice JB Pardiwala led bench to remove the stray dogs in Delhi NCR #StrayDogs #SupremeCourt Image
Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had observed that the menace of dog bites directly infringes the fundamental rights of citizens under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution.

The Court had noted that over 25,000 dog bite cases were reported in Delhi in 2024, with over 3,000 in January 2025 alone, and that sterilisation rules had failed to control the problem over the past two
Thereafter a three-judge Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria heard pleas seeking stay on the order passed by Justice Pardiwala led bench.

Judgment at 10:30 am

#StrayDogs Image
Read 14 tweets
Aug 20
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant to shortly speak at the inaugural lecture series organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).

The lecture is titled “Justice for all- Legal Aid and Mediation: The collaborative role of Bar and the Bench”

#SupremeCourt #SCBAImage
Sr. Adv. Vikas Singh (President, SCBA): Justice for all and mediation go hand in hand. It is only in the mediation process that there are no losers. In litigation there is one side which feels that it has not got justice. In mediation both sides feel like they have got justice. Justice for all is embedded in the concept of mediation.
Singh: the bar and bench should always to first think of settlement when it comes to any litigation. As litigation goes further, bitterness increases. If bar and bench both play a role in mediation and legal aid process, it will be a big opening in this subject. Today we have 5.36cr pending cases in the country. If mediation succeeds in this country it will drastically and overnight reduce the pendency of cases in this country. It can unclog the system. And ensure people in this country get justice.
Read 31 tweets
Aug 19
Supreme Court hears a plea seeking to prevent the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from demolishing historical monuments and Sufi saints’ graves in Delhi’s Mehrauli.

Bench: Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan Image
J Nagarathna: Why do you want to demolish it?

Counsel for DDA: It is a forest area.....we are against ancillary construction that come with Dargah.

J R Mahadevan: There is an express order there shall be no construction
Advocate Nizam Pasha referred to the Court’s previous order, contending that since the ASI has established the Dargah as a 12th-century monument, the opinion of the religious committee holds no relevance.
Read 9 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!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(