A Delhi courtroom Wednesday acquitted journalist Priya Ramani in M J Akbar’s prison defamation case in opposition to her over the allegations of sexual harassment, saying a girl has the fitting to place grievances earlier than any platform of her alternative even after many years. Reading out the order, the courtroom stated that there are social stigma hooked up with the allegations. Society should perceive the impression of sexual abuse and harassment on its victims.
The courtroom additional knowledgeable the events that an attraction could be filed in case of any grievance and ask Ramani to furnish a bail bond in case an attraction is most well-liked.
In its verdict, the Delhi courtroom noticed that even a person of social standing generally is a sexual harasser. “Sexual abuse takes away dignity and self confidence,” it stated, and asserted that the “right of reputation can’t be protected at the cost of right to dignity.”
Here is the chronology of the case:
October 8, 2018: Ramani names Akbar in a tweet with a reference to a 2017 Vogue India article she had written titled “To the Harvey Weinsteins of the World”.
October 15, 2018: MJ Akbar information a go well with in opposition to Priya Ramani for for allegedly defaming him by accusing him of sexual misconduct many years in the past when he was a journalist.
October 17, 2018: Akbar resigns as union minister.
January 29, 2019: Delhi courtroom summons Ramani as accused within the case. Court directs her to seem in particular person on February 25.
February 25, 2019: Delhi courtroom grants bail to Ramani.
May 4, 2019: Akbar states that Ramani’s tweets affected his repute and her language was “deeply offensive”. He states that her allegations had affected his standing with household and pals.
May 20, 2019: MJ Akbar denies assembly Ramani on the Oberoi Hotel or harassing an intern below him on the Asian Age in 2006-07.
July 6, 2019: Akbar tells courtroom that he conscious of the allegations levelled in opposition to him by a number of ladies and says that he reserves his proper to take authorized actions in opposition to every other particular person or worldwide publication or internet portal sooner or later. He provides that it’s flawed to counsel that he was selective in submitting a grievance in opposition to Priya Ramani.
July 17, 2019: Two witnesses showing in help of Akbar state that they weren’t conscious of allegations of sexual misconduct leveled by different ladies and had been conscious solely of these made by Ramani. They later decline to depose within the case because of their private, skilled and monetary relationship with Akbar.
August 23, 2019: Ramani says that MJ Akbar had intentionally focused her to divert consideration from the intense complaints in opposition to him. “Through his testimony, he feigned ignorance about my story and my truth”, she says.
September 7, 2019: Ramani tells courtroom that her tweet was meant to spotlight the “sexually-coloured behaviour” that she confronted in 1993 from him. “I used the word predator (in tweet) in the context of my personal experience with Akbar and shared experiences of many other women. I also used the word to emphasise and highlight the difference in age, influence and power between Akbar and myself”, she says.
September 9, 2019: Ramani tells courtroom that case in opposition to her has come at an important private value. Tells courtroom that it’s mandatory for ladies to talk up about sexual harassment on the office. Says that her disclosures on Akbar had been for the general public good.
October 24, 2019: Journalist Priya Ramani tells courtroom that her transfer to deactivate her Twitter account was not consider to destroy proof and states that the account could be reactivated. Asked whether or not she will open her Twitter account and make sure these feedback, Ramani replies, “I deleted my Twitter account around a month ago, so it cannot be verified now. I do not remember the specific date.”
November 21, 2019: During her cross examination, Ramani tells the courtroom that every one the occasions described by her weren’t a “figment of her imagination and work of fiction.” “It is wrong to suggest that I had made the allegations against the complainant for oblique motive and not to empower women. It is wrong to suggest that I have mala fide and extraneous motive for making the allegations against Akbar”, she says.
Ramani provides that her tweets accusing Akbar weren’t defamatory and malicious.
December 11, 2019: Journalist Ghazala Wahab, the third defence witness in help of Priya Ramani tells Delhi courtroom throughout her cross examination that allegations of sexual harassment she made in opposition to MJ Akbar weren’t a piece of fiction and that that she didn’t maliciously concoct a narrative to wreck his repute. On December 10, she states earlier than the courtroom that she was sexually harassed by former Union Minister M J Akbar in 1997 and it left her “numbed with fear and shock”.
December 11, 2019: Journalist Ghazala Wahab, the third defence witness in help of Priya Ramani tells Delhi courtroom throughout her cross examination that allegations of sexual harassment she made in opposition to MJ Akbar weren’t a piece of fiction and that that she didn’t maliciously concoct a narrative to wreck his repute. On December 10, she states earlier than the courtroom that she was sexually harassed by former Union Minister M J Akbar in 1997 and it left her “numbed with fear and shock”.
February 7, 2020: Court begins listening to closing arguments within the case. Akbar tells courtroom that Priya Ramani was “jumping onto the #MeToo bandwagon” for having introduced up the allegations of sexual harassment after a number of years.
February 28, 2020: Akbar’s lawyer tells courtroom that the second you name somebody media’s greatest predator, it’s “per se defamatory”. “Reputation effects not only that person but also others… you are sowing seeds of suspicion… you are doing it to his family, his children and those who interact with him socially and publicly… It has a cascading effect. Embarrassing questions were asked,” she advised the courtroom.
February 29, 2020: MJ Akbar’s lawyer Geeta Luthra submits that for some folks, their repute is extra invaluable than their life. After writing an entire article, saying that it was about Mr Akbar…it was for the primary time in courtroom that they stated that the complete article was not about him…” “There was no corrigendum, no apology. You did it with knowledge,” Luthra says about an article by Ramani.
September 8, 2020: Ramani says that she disclosed the alleged sexual harassment by former Union minister M J Akbar round 25 years later as a result of again then there was “a vacuum in law and there was no platform either”. In the wake of #MeToo motion, Ramani in 2018 accused Akbar of sexual misconduct round 25 years in the past when he was a journalist. Her lawyer Rebecca John says Ramani made the allegations in October 2018 since there was an “avalanche” going down in India in the course of the international #MeToo motion and that she felt “compelled to speak” after she noticed a number of ladies, who had labored below Akbar between 1993-2011, talking out in opposition to him.
September 19, 2020: Judge listening to the case seeks switch of the matter to a different courtroom on the bottom that his courtroom was designated to listen to circumstances filed in opposition to lawmakers.
October 14, 2020: Hearing arguments on whether or not the case could be heard in earlier than a particular MP/MLA courtroom, Delhi courtroom cautions that the implications of the trial persevering with with out jurisdiction could be “very dangerous” as a result of the complete proceedings could be construed vitiated and the trial de novo (anew, from the start). Court says that it may possibly now not hear the matter.
October 22, 2020: The District decide listening to the prison defamation case refuses to switch the case to a different courtroom and sends it again to a particular MP/MLA courtroom that has been listening to the matter for 2 years.
November 10, 2020: Akbar tells a courtroom that Ramani couldn’t discharge her obligation of proving that her statements had been made for public good. “You can’t tarnish a person’s reputation just like this. You have to show that what you said was not reckless, was not careless, was with due care and caution, and was the statement of a responsible person”, his lawyer states.
November 18, 2020: Vishal Pahuja, the decide listening to the case is transferred.
November 21, 2020: Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Ravindra Pandey takes over the case from Vishal Pahuja and urges each events to contemplate settling the case because the offence is compoundable in nature. “The dispute between the two parties is compoundable in nature. You are senior lawyers and have settled disputes over the years. Is there a possibility of a settlement? I don’t know much about the case. I don’t know the level of the dispute. Prima facie, what I understand is that it is compoundable in nature. Both sides should decide, otherwise I will keep this for final arguments”, he says.
December 5, 2020: With MJ Akbar suing Ramani over a defamation case, Ramani disputes his claims of getting a stellar repute. Through her legal professionals, she references an article in Firstpost annexed by Akbar and states that the article options embedded tweets of a number of ladies making allegations in opposition to Akbar. “When Akbar filed the complaint against me there were many women who made allegations against him but he chose to file the case only against Ramani. He knew there were other women and he knew about it,” her lawyer Rebecca John tells the courtroom.
December 14, 2020: Speaking by way of her lawyer, Ramani tells the courtroom that talking up on the #MeToo platform isn’t against the law and that these are “acts of extreme courage that require celebration. These are not acts for which one should face defamation.”
January 5, 2021: Akbar states that he was known as “media’s biggest sexual predator” with none analysis or investigation and accuses Ramani of creating a false assertion earlier than the courtroom concerning issuance of a corrigendum after her tweet about his reported resignation.
January 8, 2021: Countering Ramani’s argument that she was focused by him, MJ Akbar states that Ramani attacked his repute after her tweet triggered prices of sexual harassment in opposition to him. “It was Ramani’s tweet that triggered sexual harassment charges against Akbar…because she is the one who attacked me and attacked my reputation, a complaint was filed against her. I am within my rights to do so…” says Geeta Luthra.
Akbar states that Ramani’s tweet turned the idea for the media and others repeating it.
January 13, 2021: During listening to in Delhi courtroom, MJ Akbar claims that Ramani’s allegations of sexual harassment had been a figment of her creativeness. Claims that her allegations should not backed by any proof. “You have to have empirical evidence which can stand scrutiny in the court of law. There is no such evidence in this case. There is no investigation. These are just statements…”, says Akbar’s lawyer.
January 22, 2021: MJ Akbar alleges that Ramani had destroyed all proof “deliberately, intentionally, maliciously” by destroying her Twitter account. Akbar’s lawyer, senior advocate Geeta Luthra states, “These are all tweets. They were all primary evidence. Can she destroy evidence… another criminal case can be made out… All evidence which was part of the trial… deliberately, intentionally, maliciously has been destroyed…”
January 27, 2021: “No human being accused of sexual harassment can be a person of high reputation”, says Ramani throughout listening to. Ramani’s advocate Rebecca John, on behalf of Ramani states that “under no stretch of imagination” may or not it’s argued that the complete Vogue article was on Ramani’s expertise with Akbar.
February 1, 2021: Court reserves verdict after Akbar and Ramani full their arguments.
February 10, 2021: Delhi courtroom defers verdict to February 17 because of late submission of written submissions.
February 17, 2021: Delhi courtroom acquits Priya Ramani and dismisses the grievance filed by Akbar saying that no prices had been proved in opposition to her. Court information that Ramani’s disclosure was within the curiosity of serving to these going through sexual harassment at office.
