- Apprentice Lawyer
The Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rouse Avenue is hearing former Union Minister MJ Akbar's criminal defamation case against the journalist, Priya Ramani for her allegations of sexual harassment against Akbar.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ravindra Kumar Pandey is hearing the matter. Since a new judge has taken over, the parties are making final submissions afresh.
Read an account of the last hearing:
Live updates of the hearing today feature on this page.
They have built an imaginary story in their defense. They say Vogue article has two parts and only the first part pertains to MJ Akbar. There is no credit, attribution in the second part: Luthra
Ramani called Akbar media's biggest predator. When you cast an aspersion on someone, you have to show evidence and what investigation you have done: Luthra
After 25-30 years, you don't go to court .. you say there was no law. What is this law which was not present since 1860? Or when case was filed against Tarun Tejpal: Luthra
Luthra urges court to ask counsel for Priya Ramani to make submissions on 18th itself.
I'm opposing their right to rebut a rebuttal: Luthra
We'll consider after you conclude your arguments: Court
Luthra continues her submissions.
I've shown her contradictions. In notice, cross examination of Mr Akbar, she says it's the truth. Then she says there is no enquiry (with respect to premature tweet on Akbar's resignation). What is the sense of responsibility?: Luthra
Shouldn't you have issued a corrigendum? So what if he resigned later? You called it truth at the time of notice: Luthra
Sandal was working from 1994 onwards and a lot of people are talking to her because of the kind of work she's doing.. she says not a "whisper all these years" against Mr Akbar: Luthra
During all these years, some whisper would have come. Not an iota of doubt. She was doing astrology and tarot card reading. Some period seems to be overlapping: Luthra
There is no doubt created in her cross-examination. There are a few suggestions which make out no case: Luthra
I don't know the purpose of the question about Prerna Singh Bhindra, Shuma Raha etc. The case is not about them: Luthra
Except Ghazala Wahab, no-one has come to the witness box. Her allegations are wild and baseless: Luthra
It's a case of res ipsa loquitur. It is per se defamatory. There is no evidence, proof or verification. Irresponsible statements like calling someone a predator: Luthra
All about Ghazala is irrelevant to this lis. This is about Priya Ramani's allegations qua Mr MJ Akbar and her lack of proof: Luthra
Luthra argues against the questions put to Sandal during her cross examination.
This is not understandable: Luthra
In the course of duty, no witness deposes with regard to an ex-employer or colleague.. What benefit will she get?: Luthra
I don't understand, what is the line of cross examination and the questions that are put? I wrote an article (on paranormal and supernatural). I'm not denying it. What does it have to do with MJ Akbar's reputation?: Luthra
Except suggestions there are no questions.. this thing about writing on ghosts. So what? You can't impeach someone's credibility on this ground: Luthra
She never heard of any blemish on Akbar's career and no questions were put to her on this aspect: Luthra
Not one part of the defense is put to the witness. No part about reputation or dissemination is put: Luthra
Luthra reads testimony of witness Tapan Chaki.
His cross examination, you say all editors are exacting and not just MJ Akbar. So? We're talking about MJ Akbar. He stood out. He was exceptionally good. What's the cross examination to say others are also good? You are just being malicious and mean: Luthra
Thousands of tweets, reporting in newspapers, magazines.. what could she have done more to damage my reputation? It came at no cost to her. The cost is to Mr MJ Akbar. For her, it was something said irresponsibly without food faith, due process: Luthra
Ask questions about what he has said. That Akbar has an impeccable reputation, that tweets harmed his reputation. Ask him about your defense..: Luthra
I was reading the last portion of Chaki's cross examination: Luthra
Their defense was not put to even this witness: Luthra
There's no authenticity or proof.. : Luthra
Nobody can say that a professional colleague is a tutored witness. I haven't seen such a judgement. All these are bald,vague pleas: Luthra
This whole trivialising about Mr Akbar .. this is misplaced. She calls him a professional hero and famous: Luthra
There are some contradictions that come with regard to November, December.. I'm more concerned about which year: Luthra
The allegations purport to be from what I can make out.. she doesn't give the year.. I assume of 1993-94 or 95. What she says is in 2018. It is some 20-30 years and no contemporaneous proof comes before court: Luthra
All this has to be looked at from the viewpoint of authenticity.. no doubt has been cast that there was no such meeting: Luthra continues to read.
Since this version has no authenticity and no material to support which is the onus cast upon her.. I'll show the judgements: Luthra
Nothing turns on it. They contradicted themselves. I've been showing contradictions of far greater nature: Luthra
They have a very onerous burden. The exercise has been not even establish even a whisper of proof. There is not one phone bill or CCTV: Luthra
They've taken the defense of Res Gestae.. I said Nilofer line of argument was inadmissible. Their defense is unimaginary. Res Gestae has to be simultaneous: Luthra
Here, what is being said is later at night I called Nilofer. What you say to fabricate without producing landline.. neither a person in defense or complaint can show evidence after 30 years. But onus is on you: Luthra
I want to emphasize that onus is on her. She had not even started going there. She not established anything: Luthra
I am shocked and scandalised. I'm completely devastated by this..that someone can call someone a predator with so much ease. Power of pen cannot be misused: Luthra
You cannot make an allegation without due process after 2-3 decades. Because you cannot prove it and it's false, you don't have the right to do it : Luthra
She got a job, she joined Delhi and then she wanted to join Mumbai office. Mr Akbar has no knowledge. He's a busy man: Luthra
I'm very amazed at the kind of research that goes into maligning someone.. you purport to pick something from some magazine..: Luthra
Evidence act says that if something is written by someone and it is exhibited, the author can prove it after examination: Luthra
Luthra reads a judgement on this aspect.
MyI objection to their documents is not misplaced as the authors of the documents were not examined: Luthra
All their documents are marked. They didn't produce any author. They are relying on my document to say that the content becomes true: Luthra
What I want to show was Ms Ramani maligned Mr Akbar and her tweets and allegations spread like wild fire: Luthra