The TLDR: After more than two years, the courts today will issue a ruling in the defamation suit filed by former BJP minister MJ Akbar against journalist Priya Ramani. We lay out the details of the case to refresh your memory, and explain the significance of the verdict.

Who’s who in this case

Priya Ramani: is a well-known and respected journalist who is currently on the editorial board of Article 14. Her resume includes stints at leading publications such as Reuters, Elle, India Today, Cosmopolitan magazine and Mint Lounge. In 1994, early in her career, she worked at The Asian Age—where MJ Akbar was the editor.

Mobasher Jawed Akbar: is a veteran Indian journalist who served as editor at multiple publications, including The Asian Age and The Sunday Guardian. He turned to politics in in 1989 when he joined the Congress, and later in 2014, defected to the BJP—and was appointed as Minister of State (MoS) for External Affairs in July 2016. On October 17, 2018, he resigned from his post when faced with multiple allegations of sexual harassment and even rape. He remains a member of the Rajya Sabha.

A case timeline

The context: The case is inextricably linked to the rise of the #MeToo movement in India, and marks a pivotal moment. In 2017, the allegations against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein broke the wall of silence surrounding sexual assault. As women stepped forward to share their #MeToo experiences, powerful men were publicly named and shamed—often with great damage to career and reputations (though many would argue that none of it was permanent). In India, the #MeToo movement did not gain momentum until late 2018.

The essay: In October 2017, Priya Ramani wrote an essay for Vogue India titled ‘To the Harvey Weinsteins of the world’, which opened with this anecdote about a male editor who invited Ramani to his hotel room:

“It was more date, less interview. You offered me a drink from the mini bar (I refused, you drank vodka), we sat on a small table for two that overlooked the Queen's Necklace (how romantic!) and you sang me old Hindi songs after inquiring after my musical preferences. You thought you were irresistible.

 

The bed, a scary interview accompaniment, was already turned down for the night. Come sit here, you said at one point, gesturing to a tiny space near you. I'm fine, I replied with a strained smile. I escaped that night, you hired me, I worked for you for many months even though I swore I would never be in a room alone with you again.” 

No one thought much of it at the time.

The tweet: By late 2018, there had been an initial flood of #MeToo allegations on Twitter. Most were shared by women journalists, often naming powerful male editors. On October 6, 2018 journalist Ghazala Wahab tweeted: "I wonder when the floodgates will open about @mjakbar. “

On October 9, Ramani tweeted out her Vogue essay, saying “I began this piece with my MJ Akbar story. Never named him because he didn’t 'do' anything. Lots of women have worse stories about this predator—maybe they’ll share. #ulti” 

The floodgate: Over the coming days, multiple journalists stepped up to accuse Akbar:

• On October 10, Ghazala Wahab published a powerful account of sexual harassment and abuse as an intern at The Asian Age.
• On October 13, two other women—CNN journalist Majlie de Puy Kamp and Ruth David—shared their accounts of being groped by Akbar.
• By October 14, at least 11 journalists had accused Akbar of either assault or inappropriate behaviour.
• The most shocking account was published on November 2—when NPR editor Pallavi Gogoi penned a Washington Post op-ed claiming that Akbar had raped her in 1994—when she was working for him at The Asian Age.

The fallout: 

• On October 15, Akbar filed a criminal defamation case against Ramani—and notably, not any of the other women. 
• He resigned from the cabinet two days later, and was suspended by the Editors Guild of India in December. 
• Ramani was summoned by the courts in January, 2019, and granted bail in February.
• The trial began in May, but in October 2020, the presiding judge suddenly declared he did not have jurisdiction to try this case. The reason: His court can only hear cases filed against MPs and MLAs—and not those filed by them against others.
• The judge was transferred out, and a new judge was appointed to hear closing arguments. 
• He is expected to deliver his verdict today at 2 pm.

The core arguments of the case

Criminal defamation explained: In India, we have both civil and criminal defamation. A guilty verdict in a civil offence only results in the award of financial damages—and there is no prison sentence involved. A criminal defamation charge, however, could result in both a fine and upto two years in jail.  

Akbar’s argument: is fairly straightforward. The former minister of state for external affairs accused Ramani of “wilfully, deliberately, intentionally and maliciously” defaming him over “completely false, frivolous, unjustifiable, and scandalous grounds.” And the key arguments made on his behalf include the following:

“[Akbar’s lawyer Geetha] Luthra also stressed that Akbar enjoys ‘stellar reputation’ and that Ramani had tried to tarnish it. Luthra said thousands of people had worked with Akbar but there had been 'not a whisper' for nearly 50 years. ‘Reputation is a day by day, minute by minute, brick by brick-built structure. It takes one second to destroy it and 50 years to build it.’”

Akbar’s case also includes six character witnesses—mostly his former colleagues at the Sunday Guardian. 

Point to note: Luthra argued the entire Vogue essay should be considered defamatory: “After the first four paragraphs, the article refers to how that ‘boss’ was part of the ‘species’ of male bosses who preyed on subordinates.”

Ramani’s defence: relies in main on ten exceptions to the defamation law. Of these, the following three are critical to Ramani’s case:

• If the remarks say anything which is true concerning a person—and if such remarks are made or published for public good. 
• If questions raised about the character of a person are made in good faith—either to protect the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.
• It is not defamatory to express in good faith any opinion on the conduct of a person which relates to a public question.

After being granted bail last year, Ramani said, “Truth is my defence”—and that has been the core of her lawyer’s argument, who said in court: 

“The imputation is the truth. You cannot look at defamation in isolation and shut your eyes to the rest of the world and pretend nothing is happening. Truth is painful, truth is bitter.”  

Also this: Ramani’s defence vigorously challenged the claim that Akbar had a “stellar reputation”—pointing to Ghazala Wahab’s testimony and other allegations against Akbar:

“John was basically arguing that because of the numerous allegations against Akbar, including those made public before Ramani’s tweet on 8 October 2018 and facts known about his extra-marital affairs with junior colleagues long before that, he could not claim to have suffered damage to his reputation because of Ramani’s statements.”

The bottomline: The ruling in this case will have serious consequences for the willingness of women to speak up about sexual violence. And as Times of India points out, it will also decide whether #MeToo movement and allegations serve “public interest.” More on this tomorrow when we explain the verdict.

Reading list

• Quint has the most comprehensive overview of the case. 
• Mint explains how criminal defamation lawsuits have become a weapon of the wealthy.
• In this Scroll essay, Priya Ramani explains why she spoke up.
• Also read: the accounts of Ghazala Wahab and Pallavi Gogoi.
• Times of India offers a solid analysis of the case and its implications.
• Samar Halarnkar wrote a stirring tribute to his wife Priya’s courage in Scroll.