New Delhi: Senior journalist Priya Ramani on Friday told a Delhi court that the former editor of Asian Age, M.J. Akbar, who she has accused of sexual harassment, filed a “false and malicious” defamation case against her “to create a chilling effect among all the women who have spoken out about their experience of sexual harassment at the hands of Mr. Akbar”.
Appearing in the court of additional chief metropolitan magistrate Samar Vishal, Ramani made the statement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code in which the accused is given a chance to respond to the evidence recorded against them.
Ramani is being prosecuted for criminal defamation, a charge levelled against her by Akbar. Akbar was minister of state for external affairs at the time the case was filed. A number of women besides Ramani have gone public with their accusations of sexual harassment by Akbar but he has filed charges of defamation only against her.
‘Spoke out in public interest’
To the question of “why is this case against you?”, Ramani said that “it is an attempt to intimidate me”.
“By deliberately targeting me, the complainant seeks to divert attention away from the serious allegations of sexual harassment against him and the public outrage that followed,” she said.
Further, she accepted to lead the evidence in her defence and made a statement before the court explaining the circumstances leading to the case. She said she had spoken in the “public interest and for public good”.
Sexually harassed during job interview
Ramani said, “It is only now that sexual harassment at the workplace is regarded as a serious offence. I would like to state my story in brief. I was 23 years old when the complainant, the editor of a soon-to-be-launched Asian Age newspaper called [me] to a hotel for a job interview. When I got there, I had expected the interview to be in the lobby or coffee shop, but he insisted I come up to his room.”
“I was young, it was my first job interview and I did not know how to refuse. I did not know that I could set the terms of my meeting. When I reached his room, it was in an intimate space, essentially his bedroom and I was deeply uncomfortable and felt unsafe at Mr Akbar’s repeated inappropriate personal questions, his offer of an alcoholic beverage, his loud singing of songs and his invitation to sit close to him,” she said.
Also read: M.J. Akbar’s Memory Eludes Him on the Stand Again in Priya Ramani Defamation Case
Ramani added that later she called up her friend, Niloufer Venkataraman, and told her what happened.
She said in October 2017, the #MeToo movement in America emboldened countless women to break free and share their experiences of sexual harassment at the workplace. In that context, Ramani said she wrote an article in Vogue which was titled “To the Harvey Weinsteins of the World”.
Did not name Akbar initially
She said it began with her experience, but she had not named Akbar then. “I spoke about many women’s experiences with their male bosses. One year later, when the #MeToo movement came to India and women in my industry, the media, started speaking about their stories of sexual harassment… I felt as a senior journalist a responsibility to remove the cloak of anonymity. I decided to name the editor [who had figured in] that Vogue article. I spoke the truth in the public interest and in the context of the #MeToo movement. In the context of the movement, I finally had the courage and the platform to name him publicly.”
Ramani claimed that Akbar filed a “false case” against her and has “deliberately targeted” her to “divert attention from serious complaints against him”.
“Through his testimony, he feigned ignorance about my story and my truth. It is unfortunate that women who have experienced sexual harassment at the workplace must now defend themselves in criminal proceedings for speaking the truth,” she said.
Earlier, Ramani also answered questions about the witnesses put forth by the complainant – namely Sunil Gujral, Joyeeta Basu, Veenu Sandal, Habibur Rehman and Tapan Chaki.
‘No malafide, bad taste in tweets’
Answering these questions, Ramani said in her tweets on October 10 and 14, 2018 she had “spoken the truth”. “My tweet was not malafide, maligning, in bad taste or a web of lies as has been claimed,” she said.
She added to good measure that she could not say if these “affected Mr Akbar’s standing with his family and friends”.
Also read: Can’t ‘Recall’ Details, Says M.J. Akbar in #MeToo Sexual Harassment Defamation Case
With regard to what Sunil Gujral had stated, she said her tweets did not become the basis of articles in internationally known newspapers and websites. “The articles were in fact based on the collective accounts of many women, including me, who spoke up about their experiences of sexual harassment against Mr Akbar.”
“I spoke the truth and there was no deliberate attempt to harms the complainant’s reputation,” she said.
“Witnesses are motivated, were close to Akbar’
She also claimed that all the witnesses produced at Akbar’s instance were his “close personal or professional confidantes.”
“They are all motivated witnesses in this false case against me,” she said.
While answering queries pertaining to each witness separately, Ramani insisted that she did not know their personal or professional details and if they had or had not read her tweets. She also held that most of what they spoke was their “personal opinion that had no bearing on my case”.
‘Akbar not a perfect gentleman, did not hold good reputation in society’
As Akbar’s qualities were alluded to in many of the statements of these witnesses, Ramani sought to counter these. In response to Chaki’s assertion, she said: “All the other editors I have worked with in my 25 years of being a journalist had writing skills, administrative skills, are extracting and demanding when it comes to copy, schedule and they have all had an uncanny sense of what constitutes news. There is nothing special about the complainant.”
Also read: Thank You Very Much, Mr. Akbar
She added that “it is false that Mr Akbar had an impeccable reputation.”
Responding to a question on Gujral’s submission, Ramani said: “It is false that Mr Akbar is a perfect gentleman holding a good reputation in society.”
‘He was not held in high esteem in office’
Here she also insisted that “all editors are hard working, keep long working hours and travel for political stories.”
In response to queries regarding Ms. Basu’s submission, Ramani said, “it is false to say that the complainant was a complete professional, that he had an impeccable reputation or that he was held in high esteem in office”.
Also read: #MeToo: 19 Women Journalists Speak out Against M.J. Akbar, Support Priya Ramani
Ramani, two defence witnesses to be examined now
After Ramani’s submission got over, the ACMM allowed a plea from her counsel, Rebecca John, under Section 313 for examining the defence witnesses. The defence would now examine Ramani and two other witnesses. The court allowed that their names be shared with the prosecution and listed the next two hearings for September 7 and 9.