A heartening verdict in the MJ Akbar case
The TLDR: A Delhi court acquitted Priya Ramani of criminal defamation charges, and expressed resounding support for the right of all women to call out their sexual harassers. We offer a quick look at the key parts of the ruling, and assess its significance.
Note: ICYMI, Wednesday’s big story has all the details on the case, including the law and key arguments made by both sides.
One: MJ Akbar’s reputation
While making the case for defamation, his lawyer Geetha Luthra had argued that Akbar enjoyed a “stellar reputation.” She claimed that there had been “not a whisper” about sexual misconduct for nearly 50 years, and went on to say: “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.”
The court disagreed in its ruling:
“It is further argued that complainant and his witnesses have claimed that complainant is a man of stellar reputation, however, accused through her testimony and testimony of DW3 [Ghazala Wahab] demolished the complainant's claim of having his stellar reputation.
It is further argued that complainant himself admitted that he was in consensual relationship with one Pallavi Gogoi who was 23 years of age in the year 1994 and complainant was 43 years old at that time and Pallavi Gogoi was subordinate to the complainant at the workplace, which further demolishes the claim of complainant having stellar reputation.”
Just as notably: The court went further and took direct aim at the private behaviour of supposedly reputable men:
“It cannot be ignored that most of the time, the offence of sexual harassment and sexual abuse committed in the close doors or privately. Sometimes the victims herself does not understand what is happening to them or what is happening to them is wrong. Despite how well respected some persons are in the society, they in their personal lives, could show extreme cruelty to the females.”
Two: The definition of truth and public good
A key part of Ramani’s defence is that she spoke the truth in service of the public good. And the court 1) accepted her claim, and 2) underlined the importance of women speaking their ‘truth’ in public forums.
In assessing whether Ramani’s claim about Akbar’s sexual misconduct was true, the court relied on the “preponderance of probabilities.” Given the multiple allegations made by various women, it is more likely that what Ramani said was true—as opposed to Akbar’s denial of wrongdoing.
Far more importantly: The ruling went beyond Ramani’s own tweets, and defended the right of all women to share their #MeToo stories—without fear of being accused of defamation:
“The attack on the character of sex abuser or offender by sex abuse victim, is the reaction of self defence after the mental trauma suffered by the victim regarding the shame attached with the crime committed against her.
The woman cannot be punished for raising voice against the sex abuse on the pretext of criminal complaint of defamation as the right of reputation cannot be protected at the cost of the right of life and dignity of woman as guaranteed in Indian Constitution under article 21 and right of equality before law and equal protection of law as guaranteed under article 14 of the Constitution. The woman has a right to put her grievance at any platform of her choice and even after decades.”
Also this: The court took note of the fact that the alleged incidents of sexual harassment and abuse took place prior to the Supreme Court’s landmark 1997 ruling —which established the so-called Vishaka guidelines. And that these guidelines were not codified into law until 2013 in the form of the POSH act—which requires workplaces to set up internal committees so survivors do not have to go through a lengthy court ordeal to get justice.
The significance of the ruling
To be clear, this is a case where women speaking up against an alleged sexual predator were put on the dock. And they have been vindicated. However, it does not offer justice for the survivors who endured the abuse. That said, it marks an important step forward
One: It offers new hope and energy to the #MeToo movement. As a beaming Priya Ramani noted (watch her here):
“I feel vindicated on behalf of all the women who have ever spoken up on sexual harassment in the workplace. Sexual harassment has got the attention that it deserves. Despite the fact that it was me the victim who had to stand as the accused.”
And Wahab—who testified as a survivor—underlined the same:
“It is a moment when we need to reflect on the long distance that we have covered and gird ourselves up for the road ahead. Calling it a victory suggests the culmination of a process. It is akin to calling #MeToo a movement. That is why in the last two years people were quick to declare end of the movement or its fizzling out.”
Two: As legal experts noted, the ruling slapped down the most common argument used to dismiss #MeToo allegations: “That is a great step in recognizing the fact that merely passage of time would not invalidate the claim of the woman that she suffered harassment.”
Three: It upholds a woman’s right to share her story. Social media offered some recourse for women who have long been ill-served by our judicial system—which is extremely slow, punitive and rarely offers justice. For example: A complaint against TERI chairman Rajendra Kumar Pachauri—based on 6000 email and text messages as evidence—dragged on for six years, and finally ended when Pachauri died in 2020.
Four: At the very least, defamation may no longer be a handy weapon to attack #MeToo survivors. As the MeToo movement gathered force, powerful men around the world turned to defamation lawsuits to silence their accusers. In fact, Pachauri himself turned around and sued his accuser’s lawyer Vrinda Grover and several media publications. As Ramani says, her acquittal may “discourage powerful men from filing false cases against women who share their truths.”
The bottomline: The ruling represents a small but important step forward. But we should also note that it was not delivered by the Supreme or High Court. And therefore, it does not establish any kind of legal precedent. We can only hope it will encourage the higher courts to do so.
Also, this priceless Mumbai Mirror cover from October 2018.
Reading list
For all the details on the case, read our Wednesday explainer. The entire judgement is available here. New York Times has the only comprehensive overview of the verdict as of now. It is worth revisiting Times of India’s lengthy take on the significance of this case. Firstpost lists almost every #MeToo allegation and their outcome (yes, it makes for depressing reading).