M.J. Akbar on #MeToo Allegations: Priya Ramani’s ‘Defamatory’ Statements Seek Vengeance

Akbar made the statement before the ACMM, Vishal Pahuja, through his lawyer during the final arguments in a criminal defamation complaint filed by him against Ramani.

New Delhi Former Union minister, M.J. Akbar, on Tuesday told a Delhi court that journalist Priya Ramani did not make defamatory statements for the public good, but out of vengeance.

Akbar made the statement before the additional chief metropolitan magistrate (ACMM) Vishal Pahuja, through his lawyer during the final arguments in a criminal defamation complaint filed by him against Ramani.

In the wake of #MeToo movement, Ramani in 2018 accused Akbar of sexual misconduct around 20 years ago when he was a journalist.

Senior advocate Geeta Luthra, appearing for Akbar, told the court that Ramani didn’t make these statements (termed by Akbar as defamatory) for the public good, she made them out of vengeance.  “Ramani didn’t produce any landline records, parking receipts, no CCTV footage, nothing. She didn’t produce any evidence to prove her story,” Luthra said.

The counsel claimed that Ramani wrote a “fictitious piece” in the Vogue magazine in the context of the #MeToo movement with a “mala fide intention” as she intended to “tarnish the reputation of Akbar”.

“Reckless statements against Akbar were put in a public place without any care or caution… The per se effect of Ramani’s statements was defamatory, damaging the reputation of Akbar,” Akbar’s counsel said.

Luthra had concluded her final submissions on behalf of Akbar in February this year, following which senior advocate Rebecca John had concluded her submissions on behalf of Ramani on September 19.

Shortly before the Delhi court was slated to hear Luthra’s rebuttal for Akbar, the judge wondered if the court had jurisdiction to decide on cases filed by public representatives or if it could only hear cases against such representatives.

On October 22, however, a district and sessions judge said the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate could continue hearing the case as it involved an MP and it should not matter whether it was filed by them or against them.

(With PTI inputs)