New Delhi: Taking the stand for the second day as a defence witness in the defamation case filed against Priya Ramani by BJP leader M.J. Akbar, senior journalist Ghazala Wahab on Wednesday answered questions put to her by the politician’s counsel, Geeta Luthra.
Wahab had testified on Tuesday how Akbar had sexually harassed her repeatedly in 1997. Akbar was editor of the Asian Age at the time and is now an MP for the BJP. He was, until last year, a minister in the Narendra Modi government.
Wahab spoke about how Akbar had groped her, forcibly kissed her and made several unwanted proposals to her despite her refusing his advances. She says she finally quit her job at the Asian Age as his harassment became unbearable.
Luthra’s cross examination consisted of a handful of questions and suggestions to Wahab, all of which she denied. This was over in just over 20 minutes.
Before the proceedings began, Luthra asked to speak with the judge privately in his chamber. It emerged that she was upset that the media, including The Wire, had reported how her team of lawyers had laughed during Wahab’s testimony the previous day.
ALSO READ: M.J. Akbar’s ‘Sexual Misconduct Forced Me to Quit’, Ghazala Wahab Tells Court
After a brief chat with her, additional chief metropolitan magistrate Vishal Pahuja addressed the packed courtroom.
“Humble request to each one in this court room. I’m restraining myself from saying anything to media. It is your right to report…. But I’m requesting everyone to not comment on lawyers and their team,” he said.
After the cross-examination ended, the judge said, “I request the reporter who reported the personal remarks to stay back please. All others may leave the room.” He did not specify what were the “personal remarks.”
When all journalists left the court room and waited outside, The Wire’s reporter was called back into the court room alone. She went in but journalists Menaka Rao and Harinder Baweja accompanied her. The judge said that “irresponsible remarks” should not be made by journalists. “In future please restrain yourself from making any personal remarks,” he said.
The journalists repeatedly asked the judge to explain what “personal remarks” mean. The judge was reluctant to specifically say what were the remarks and instead said “I can only request the learned journalist and news correspondents to please maintain decorum of the court.”
The Wire’s reporter then asked if it was permissible to report that there was laughing in court, since that is also against the decorum of the court. Baweja said, “Sexual violence is not a funny issue.”
The judge did not respond on this and the matter concluded. He later recorded in his order that journalists should not make personal remarks but did not order any media house to restrain or retract their reporting on the case.
Intimidating, “slut shaming” women in sexual violence cases
At Tuesday’s hearing, Luthra, her team of lawyers and interns were talking and laughing amongst themselves through out. This was reported by Mumbai Mirror, Quint, NewsLaundry and The Wire.
When Wahab was talking about how she quit her job and took a train home to Agra, NewsLaundry reported that Luthra mocked Wahab and said to her colleagues: “Train aur bogie number bhi bata do.” (“Why don’t you tell us the train and coach number as well?”).
In the early hearings of the case, Luthra had asked the judge to instruct the court room to not murmur or laugh when Akbar was making his statement. A few hearings ago, she also asked the judge to censure journalists in court for tweeting about the case. On Wednesday, she wanted the judge to compel journalists to not report about her team laughing in court. The judge declined to censure the media in all these instances.
It is common for women testifying in court about sexual harassment to be heckled and intimidated by lawyers. Lawyers strategically interrupt them, snigger and seek to “slut shame” them by asking about their past sexual history or making public salacious details about the victims and witnesses.
During the hearings in this case, John who is the lawyer for Ramani, has appealed to the judge several times to ask Luthra and her team to be quiet and to allow the women on the stand to speak.
PratikshaBaxi’s book, Public Secrets of Law describes this dynamic in rape trials in India from extensive ethnographic work in court rooms. She writes: “Cross-examination is perceived by defence lawyers as a method of deterring women from testifying in courts of law. Judicial horror leading to convictions is produced after these processes of verification, which deploy shame and stigma to demonstrate rape.” She explains how the testimonies of women are often distorted and misrepresented in trials by defence lawyers who convert testimonies into confessions.
Akbar has sued Priya Ramani for accusing him of sexual harassment. Nearly 16 women have come forward with their own stories against Akbar, such as Wahab and also journalist Pallavi Gogoi who wrote in the Washington Post last year, that Akbar had raped her. Akbar has only sued Ramani.