MJ Akbar’s attorney Geeta Luthra made her concluding arguments on Tuesday in a Delhi court docket in the gentle Union minister’s defamation case in opposition to journalist Priya Ramani.
Steady by the #MeToo motion in 2018, Ramani had accused Akbar of sexual misconduct in an incident relationship virtually three decades previously.
Within the outdated listening to, Ramani’s attorney Rebecca John had accomplished her submissions earlier than Extra Chief Metropolitan Justice of the Peace Ravindra K Pandey.
In accordance to Bar & Bench, senior advocate Luthra told the court docket that John’s submissions on behalf of Ramani had made it seem as even though Akbar used to be the accused. “She [Ramani] has now not filed the grievance. It used to be [Akbar’s] reputation that used to be tarnished,” Luthra acknowledged. “[This] is a defamation case and never a sexual harassment case by her [Ramani].”
“It’s essential to work every day to form any such reputation. Akbar is [sic] a top journalist in India. He labored for 40 years, all the intention by which there used to be now not an allegation in opposition to him. In 2018, [Ramani] acknowledged one thing for the first time and tarnished [Akbar’s] reputation of 40 years,” Luthra added.
Akbar’s steady team countered Ramani’s counsel’s argument for why others who had made same allegations in opposition to the gentle editor and minister had now not been named in the defamation whisk neatly with alongside Ramani.
“You would possibly most doubtless’t articulate why didn’t you file grievance in opposition to A or B,” Luthra acknowledged. “Their defence is ‘why have we now not made others accused?’. Or now not it’s now not a legally tenable argument.”
Luthra labelled Ramani’s statements in opposition to Akbar “baseless” and “factually inaccurate”.
Extra, discovering out the 2017 Vogue article by which Ramani had first outlined her allegations of sexual harassment, albeit without pointing out Akbar in it, Luthra contended that the nameless male boss to whom the portion is addressed and to whose conduct it refers, is clearly supposed to be a single particular person; she refuted Ramani’s competitors that ‘some parts of the article referred to Akbar and others didn’t’, Live Regulation reported.
The listening to will now proceed on 24 December.