advertisement
(This piece was first published on 8 February. It has been republished from The Quint’s archives after MJ Akbar moved Delhi High Court, challenging a trial court’s decision to acquit journalist Priya Ramani.)
Former Union Minister MJ Akbar has moved the Delhi High Court challenging a trial court’s decision to acquit journalist Priya Ramani in the criminal defamation case he had brought against her in 2018.
A Delhi trial court had on 17 February, acquitted Ramani in the said case, which Akbar had filed over the sexual harassment allegations levelled against him by her during the #MeToo movement.
Akbar claims that an article by Priya Ramani, written for Vogue in 2017 amid the #MeToo movement, and a subsequent tweet about him in 2018 when the movement was sweeping India, caused damage to his “stellar reputation”. Ramani has contested these claims and pleaded truth as her defence.
The #MeToo movement, as we now perceive it, began with the outpouring of allegations against film producer Harvey Weinstein in the United States in 2017. It subsequently took India by storm as well, with many professionals calling out their abusers on public platforms. Thus, the curtain was lifted and many popular figures found their deeds revealed for the public view.
In a 2017 article about sexual predators at workplace, written for the Vogue, Priya Ramani had described her ordeal of having been sexually harassed by a former boss during her job interview for his publication.
In the opening paragraphs of the article titled “To the Harvey Weinsteins of the World”, Ramani described her former boss as “one of my professional heroes” and said:
She then went on to describe how the man had behaved inappropriately and had made her feel uncomfortable through the course of the interview.
“It was more date, less interview. You offered me a drink from the mini bar (I refused, you drank vodka), we sat on a small table for two that overlooked the Queen's Necklace (how romantic!) and you sang me old Hindi songs after inquiring after my musical preferences. You thought you were irresistible.
The bed, a scary interview accompaniment, was already turned down for the night. Come sit here, you said at one point, gesturing to a tiny space near you. I'm fine, I replied with a strained smile. I escaped that night, you hired me, I worked for you for many months even though I swore I would never be in a room alone with you again.”
However, it is important to note, as has been emphasised by Ramani’s counsel, that the entire article does not pertain to Ramani’s alleged experience with the ‘male boss’; only the first part (four paragraphs) does.
A year after the publication of the Vogue article, when the #MeToo movement finally caught on in India, Ramani alleged on social media that the former boss had, in fact, been MJ Akbar.
Ramani’s allegations, as was established by and by, date back to the time when Akbar was an editor at The Asian Age. Ramani worked with the newspaper from January to October in 1994.
Following the tweet, Akbar had filed a criminal defamation case against Ramani, asserting that her allegations were false and that it had cost him his “stellar reputation”.
Akbar had also, in the next few days, stepped down as a minister in the central government, after multiple women accused him of sexual harassment, assault, and even rape, in one case.
The events pertaining to the MJ Akbar-Priya Ramani case have so far panned out as thus:
Primarily, MJ Akbar has contended that Priya Ramani’s allegations are fictitious, and that they have cost him his “stellar reputation”. This was claimed to amount to criminal defamation under the Indian Penal Code (defined in Section 499, charging provision in Section 500).
A person found guilty of criminal defamation can face a maximum punishment of two years’ imprisonment or a fine or both.
Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra, appearing for Akbar, has said that he had a “long and illustrious career” and exhibited documents before the court to prove the “impeccable reputation" of MJ Akbar. She also included statements made by Akbar’s character witnesses Veenu Sandal, Jyotika Basu and Tapan Chakki.
Further, Luthra has pointed out some inaccuracies in other tweets by Ramani (such as one where, relying on media reports at the time, she had said that Akbar had resigned even before he had done so), and that Ramani had referred to Akbar as "media’s biggest sexual predator".
Further, Luthra, through the course of the hearings, claimed that Ramani had alternate ways of lodging the complaint against Akbar, both at the time of the alleged incident and now, rather than going on social media.
Akbar’s legal team has claimed that Ramani’s article is ‘per se’ defamatory as there is no basis for it. This claim is based on an interpretation of Ramani’s Vogue article that views the entire piece as referring to Akbar, not just the beginning – this would undoubtedly be defamatory as the rest of the article includes references to actions of others accused in the #MeToo movement, including Harvey Weinstein.
“She didn't mention in her article that it doesn't refer to Akbar in its entirety,” Luthra argued.
“Truth is my defence,” Priya Ramani had said on 25 February, after a Delhi court had granted her bail. This is the statement she stood by until the very end.
Senior Advocate Rebecca John, appearing for Ramani, through the course of the hearings, pointed out that Ramani had pleaded “truth” as her defence, “made in good faith, in public interest, and for public good”.
She argued that even if Akbar’s reputation had suffered as a result of what Ramani had said, Ramani’s statements fell within the following exceptions under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code:
Ghazala Wahab, one of the other women who had accused Akbar of not just sexual harassment, but sexual assault, took the stand as a defence witness. This was part of a key gambit by Ramani’s defence team to argue that Ramani’s article and tweet had not in fact damaged Akbar’s reputation.
Citing Wahab’s testimony and a Firstpost article – which MJ Akbar himself exhibited and which carried allegations against Akbar by fourteen women – Rebecca John suggested that there was no evidence really of Akbar’s "stellar reputation".
John was basically arguing that because of the numerous allegations against Akbar, including those made public before Ramani’s tweet on 8 October 2018 and facts known about his extra-marital affairs with junior colleagues long before that, he could not claim to have suffered damage to his reputation because of Ramani’s statements.
Rebecca John also read Akbar’s statements made in the pre-summoning stage as well as during the cross-examination to assert that there were inconsistencies in Akbar’s response to the allegations about the interview in Ramani’s story.
John also pointed out that Akbar, in his statements, had admitted that he was in a consensual relationship with journalist Pallavi Gogoi – who had also accused Akbar of sexually harassment and rape. Akbar’s wife had issued a statement when Gogoi’s allegations had first come out which noted that she and many others were aware of the affair and that it was consensual, not forced.
Akbar had said that Gogoi was not working under duress. However, John pointed out before the court that there was a substantial age and power difference between Pallavi Gogoi and MJ Akbar, and that she was her subordinate.
Most importantly, John refuted Akbar’s claims of the entire Vogue article being about him, by pointing out:
There is more to this case than just the possibility of imprisonment for Ramani.
Not only does it pertain to two public figures – an ex-Union Minister and a senior journalist – but the case could also have serious ramifications of the legacy of the #MeToo movement in India, for the precedent it will set.
This is because it will become an example of whether a movement like #MeToo can be viewed as a "public good" (as Ramani has argued). This will be key to how allegations by others who were outed during the movement will be treated in the near future and how similar movements further down the line will be viewed.
Beyond the purely technical legal consequences, within the broader cultural framework of pervasive sexual harassment, it also remains to be seen whether this case will serve as a beacon of hope and encouragement for abuse survivors or as a means of silencing them.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)
Published: 09 Feb 2021,11:11 AM IST