Important part of the #PriyaRamani judgment: the Court affirms that an honest error of fact will not lead to liability for defamation, as long as reasonable efforts were made to ensure veracity (in the context of Akbar's resignation as Minister).
Other important findings:
- the length of time between the incident of sexual harassment and making it public is irrelevant (pg. 90)
- the absence or failure of institutional mechanisms means that survivors are entitled to use other media to speak up. (pg. 90)
- the length of time between the incident of sexual harassment and making it public is irrelevant (pg. 90)
- the absence or failure of institutional mechanisms means that survivors are entitled to use other media to speak up. (pg. 90)
- speaking up on public platforms is a form of self-defence (pg. 90)
- sexual harassment undermines both dignity (Article 21) and equality (Articles 14 and 15) because of its gendered nature; these rights override the right to reputation (pg 90)
- sexual harassment undermines both dignity (Article 21) and equality (Articles 14 and 15) because of its gendered nature; these rights override the right to reputation (pg 90)
- a defence of truth/good faith comment requires to be established only on the balance of probabilities; in the specific context of sexual harassment, this must be considered in light of the fact that sexual harassment often takes place in private, without witnesses (pg 89)
Good judgment.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
