MJ Akbar v. Priya Ramani: Two years, three judges and a 90-page judgement

In a historic moment in the Indian MeToo movement, a Delhi Court presided by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Ravindra Kumar Pandey, Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi on Wednesday acquitted journalist Priya Ramani in MJ Akbar's defamation case.

. Significantly, the final arguments in the defamation trial were concluded in a record time of a little over two months.

. On account of COVID-19, all arguments in the case were made through virtual mode.

. Three judges presided over the defamation trial, with judge Pandey hearing the case for the first time only on November 21, 2020.

. He reserved verdict in the case on February 1, 2021.

.Woman cannot be punished for raising voice against sexual abuse: Ten takeaways from the order acquitting Priya Ramani. Judge Samar Vishal took cognizance of MJ Akbar's criminal defamation complaint in October 2018. He thereafter went on to summon Priya Ramani and grant her bail in the matter.

. Following judge Vishal's transfer, judge Vishal Pahuja began hearing the case from November 2019 when the trial was at the stage of defense evidence .

. Subsequently, post conclusion of arguments, final arguments in the matter began before judge Pahuja in February 2020.

. In October 2020, judge Pahuja, however, referred the matter to the District & Sessions Judge, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi for its transfer to another court.

. Since his court was a Special Court for MP/MLAs, judge Pahuja opined that MJ Akbar's defamation case against Priya Ramani needed to be transferred on account of the defamation complaint not being "against" any MP or MLA.

. While the District & Sessions Judge refused to transfe r MJ Akbar's defamation case to another court, the Delhi High Court soon notified the transfer of more than 200 judicial officers including that of judge Pahuja.

. Consequently, judge Pandey took over the reins of the Court and final arguments began afresh.

. On his first day, judge Pandey even gave an opportunity to the parties to explore if there was any scope of a settlement in the criminal defamation case.

. In his 90-page judgement in the case, judge Pandey ruled that right of reputation could not be protected at the cost of the right of life and dignity of a woman.

. " The woman cannot be punished for raising voice against the sexabuse on the pretext of criminal complaint of defamation, " he said.

. The judgement not only discussed the Economic Survey Report of the year 2020-2021 on the participation rate of women in the workforce, and the international and national legislative frameworks related to sexual-harassment of women, but also made references to Mahabarata and Ramayana.

. "..In 'Balyamiki Ramayan', the reference of great respect is found, when Prince Laxman was asked to describe about Princesses Sita, he answered that he remembers only her feet as he had never looked beyond that. In the “Aranaya Kand of Ramcharitmanas”, a reference of noble tradition of protecting, respecting and promoting the dignity of women is found, and it refers about noble 'Jatayu' ( the mithical bird) when witnessed the crime of abduction of princes 'Sita', he came swiftly to protect princesses Sita and consequently his wings were cut down by Ravan, the abductor of the Sita. The noble word ' Jatayu' though was wounded and was dying, but he lived long enough to pass the information of abduction of princesses Sita to the Prince Ram and Prince Laxman," the judgment said.

. It further stated that in “Sabha Parv of Mahabharta”, the reference is found about the appeal of queen Dropati for justice to the Kuru Raj Sabha and she questioned the legality of her treatment of being dragged by Duhashana into the dice hall. The subtlety of the questions, asked in a situation of intense personal trauma, is indicative of her cerebral power and her ability of sharp and logical analysis."

. After the reading out the verdict in open court, judge Pandey informed the parties that in case of disagreement, the option of appeal was available to them.

. Priya Ramani was represented by Senior Advocate Rebecca M John along with advocates Bhavook Chauhan, Harsh Bora, Megha Bahl and Praavita Kashyap.

. Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra, Sandeep Kapur, Senior Partner at Karanjawala and Co along with advoactes Vir Inderpal Singh Sandhu, Rajat Soni,Vivek Suri, Niharika Karanjawala, Shivani Luthra Lohiya, Asmita Narula, and Sidhant Krishan appeared for MJ Akbar.

. Last month, judge Pandey had convicted Aam Aadmi Party legislator, Somnath Bharti in AIIMS assault case of 2016 and sentenced him to two years imprisonment.

. [Read Judgment]

MJ Akbar v. Priya Ramani: Two years, three judges and a 90-page judgement

aditi@barandbench.com

Related Stories