Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?


‘Factually unsuitable, mala fide’: MJ Akbar’s lawyer Geeta Luthra items rejoinder in defamation swimsuit against Priya Ramani


On Tuesday, 10 November, MJ Akbar’s senior imply Geeta Luthra presented rejoinder arguments in her client’s defamation case against Priya Ramani prior to ACMM Vishal Pahuja at Rouse Avenue Court, Unique Delhi. Luthra used to be responding to the closing arguments made by Ramani’s moral counsel, senior imply Rebecca John, on 19 September.

John’s closing submissions had neatly-known that “freedom of speech and expression is intrinsic to a democratic society. Ramani has shown how to personal a press free up in barely correct religion and public passion. #MeToo circulation gave a platform to thousands of ladies all across the area to near lend a hand forward and share their tales of sexual harassment,” as reported by Reside Law.

In response, Luthra on Tuesday argued that, “For some folk, recognition is extra most main than one’s life,” citing the Supreme Court judgment in Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India wherein the validity of felony defamation used to be held.

Luthra talked about that in all these years no one has ever solid any aspersions on Akbar’s persona and that his recognition “can’t be tarnished in this device”. “Allegations against him are fraudulent and made with out any care any warning” she argues claiming that Ramani had no proof to corroborate her claims of being confused by Akbar in a hotel room in 1994.

“What’s most offensive is that you simply personal such allegations on a public area, love Twitter, where I will occupy no replacement to shield myself with out indulging in mud-slinging,” Luthra stresses.

She talked about that she is no longer fascinated by Ramani’s recognition and that it’s a ways rarely the sector materials of the defamation case. “This case is simplest linked to Akbar’s recognition,” Luthra argued and continued: “Ramani did now not occupy to title and blame the particular person she talked about in her Vogue article. That is a signal of her malice. On what basis did she call Akbar the ‘supreme predator of media’, what care and warning did she observe? Ramani did now not personal these statements for the public just correct, she made them out of vengeance. She did now not even apologise for a factually unsuitable assertion. It reveals her scant regard for fact.”

“Calling an individual a predator is per se defamatory,” Luthra identified.

In her arguments, she confused out mainly on proving Akbar’s “impeccable recognition” and to give a bewitch to her claims she read out parts of Akbar’s statements made all the device in which via his examination in chief; she also reiterated the infamous checklist of Akbar’s publications and PW Veenu Sandal’s statements.

“Person after particular person has talked about Akbar had an impeccable recognition every in non-public and genuine life. Akbar used to be a tricky genuine, a tricky taskmaster — that’s what your entire prosecution witnesses occupy claimed. There may be nothing on file to impeach the statements of prosecution witnesses exonerating Akbar’s impeccable recognition,” argued Luthra.

She talked about a tweet that Ramani had attach apart out saying Akbar had resigned from his place of work, which Luthra claimed used to be unsuitable. She additional identified that “the per se enact of Ramani’s statements used to be defamatory, negative the recognition of Akbar.” Additional, she also accused Ramani of performing mala fide with regard to her article within the Vogue that used to be revealed in 2017.

“Ramani wrote a fictitious half in Vogue within the context of #MeToo circulation. Ramani’s selective memory reveals her mala fide blueprint, it reveals premeditated behaviour,” Luthra alleged. She wondered Ramani’s blueprint and religion within the public passion and talked about that Ramani had a form of alternatives and platforms to expand her instruct against sexual harassment prior to 2018.

After reading from another previous judgement, Luthra attacked Ramani’s myth of the alleged sexual harassment by a “male boss” and talked about it referred to Akbar on my own — something Ramani’s moral counsel Rebecca John had denied prior to the court docket. “I’d occupy to highlight at this level that the article deals with every Akbar and varied male bosses,” John had talked about in her closing arguments as presented prior to the Delhi court docket on 5 September.

Luthra this day talked about that Ramani no longer quoting the sources that she dilapidated in her article “reveals her price and persona as a seek for,” to which the court docket pointed an anomaly responsible [in the defamation suit filed by Akbar].

Luthra will proceed with her arguments on Wednesday (11 November) at 10.30 am.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like


Startup founders, brace your self for a pleasant different. TechCrunch, in partnership with cela, will host eleven — count ‘em eleven — accelerators in...


Chamoli, Uttarakhand:  As rescue operation is underway at the tunnel where 39 people are trapped, Uttarakhand Director General of Police (DGP) Ashok Kumar on Tuesday said it...


Researchers at the Indian Institute of Technology-Delhi have developed a web-based dashboard to predict the spread of deadly Covid-19 in India. The mobile-friendly dashboard,...


India’s energy demands will increase more than those of any other country over the next two decades, underlining the country’s importance to global efforts...