Delhi court starts hearing MJ Akbar's defamation case against Priya Ramani.

Sr. Adv. Rebecca John begins submissions for Ramani.

John refers to case documents: The whole of Priya Ramani's case was put up before the witness.

#MeToo #metooindia @mjakbar
John: I was under an obligation to tell the witness what my defence was, have fulfilled that obligation.

Continues showing case documents.
John refers to an article by Ramani in 2017 where noone was named, however, in 2018 when she tweeted, this article was referred to/attached in the tweet.

John: Only the first four paras of the article referred to Akbar, rest of the article was about male bosses in general.
John refers to the article in @voguemagazine
John admits that even though Akbar wasn't named in the article, the first 4 paras referred to him.

#MeToo @mjakbar
John refutes Akbar's submission that the whole article was about him.

John: This is self-evident. The portions of the article in inverted commas are from articles written in America by American authors, which is why they are in inverted commas. They've nothing to do with Akbar.
John: This was an unwanted controversy. When we read Ramani's statement, this will become clearer.
John refers to experiences shared by Saba Naqvi, Harinder Baweja, Anju Bharti, Suparna Sharma, in response to Ramani's tweet.
John: In one of the experiences shared, the lady in question had talked about how she was called to a hotel room by Akbar for an interview.

Judge: Has he made complaints against others also?

John: No, he has only picked out Ramani, and he admits he was aware of others also.
John presses that the FirstPost article was infact put forth by Akbar and not Ramani before the court. She argues that it's an established principle of law that if the prosecution places a document on record, the defence can very well rely on it.
John reads out a judgment from the Delhi High Court to establish the above argument.
Akbar has stated that he shared a consensual relationship with Pallavi Gogoi 23 years back which ended on a bitter note.

His wife, on the other hand stated that, Pallavi's flaunting the relationship publicly threatened to destroy their family- which he admitted.
John: My purpose of reading these out, is showing that this is opposed to his claim of having a 'sterling reputation'. Is this the record of a man with a "sterling reputation"?

#MeToo #MJAkbar #PriyaRamani
John: Irrespective of the nature of his relationship, and I am noone to comment on it, Mr. Akbar has admitted that he was in a relationship with a woman who was 20 years his junior and his subordinate at the workplace, at the time he was married.

#MJAkbar #MeToo
John: This is not the conduct of a man with a sterling reputation. Through my cross examination, I tried to establish my truth, my story. I have established, through his own documents, that reputation which is an ingredient of S.499 IPC - he didn't enjoy a sterling reputation.
John: He didn't even remember that the Delhi High Court convicted him for contempt, it seems there is no onus on him to be truthful. He is a politician now, but was a journalist earlier. Where is the onus of truth?
Court takes a 5-minute break.
Hearing resumes.

More from Live Law

More from Law

1/ After a good night's sleep, I have a few thoughts on the impending Ripple lawsuit.

Less schadenfreude, more "what now?" https://t.co/a0oTwblBHB


2/ First of all, the USG is going to lose.

I don't even need to read the complaint. They might force a settlement, but they're outclassed on legal.

Remember Ripple engaged former SEC Chair Mary Jo White in a civil matter in 2018. A hint of their

3/ Second, the USG should lose.

The SEC restrictions on non-accredited investors; the ridiculous Howey test; 80 year old securities law like the "40 Act" all need to die in fire. They are un-American and completely outdated.

I hope Ripple wins. (WUT?)

4/ Third, it's incumbent upon industry to self-police and hold the moral high ground.

I give certain individuals A's and others F's, but as a whole, the most powerful people and companies generally take a Swiss neutrality stance on assets.

So we're effectively in this together.

5/ We're "in this together" to draw lines of regulatory demarcation.

XRP as a "security" further hurts the U.S. businesses while global comps will continue to make these markets.

XRP as a security also means other assets will meet the same fate. At least Ripple has $ to fight.
We are live tweeting from the preliminary hearing of the Employment Tribunal case in which #AllisonBailey is suing Stonewall and Garden Court chambers.


The judge has ruled that for this hearing only, the names should remain redacted.

It is a Rule 50 Order. These particular individuals are members of Stonewall’s Trans Advisory Group and their names may well be known elsewhere. What is relevant is the messages from the group to Garden Court.

The judge states she would not make the same decision at the full hearing. This is only for the preliminary hearing.

Having dealt with the anonymity issue we now move to the main submissions in the case.
Hot take: Courts might be able to review the legality of this impeachment, even under current political-question doctrine. Here’s why and how the issue might arise:


Suppose Senate convicts and disqualifies Trump from ever holding federal office. Trump files paperwork to run anyway, but state officials deny his application, citing his Senate impeachment judgment. Trump sues, arguing that the judgment is void.

Normally a legal dispute about a prospective candidates eligibility to run would certainly present a justiciable case or controversy. But are courts bound to accept the Senate impeachment judgment as valid? Maybe not. Here’s why:

According to Article I, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” This is a small amount of judicial power vested in Congress. When trying impeachments, the Senate sits as a court.

The Senate’s judicial power includes the power to decide relevant legal questions that arise, such as what procedures are sufficient to constitute a “trial” w/in the Constitution’s meaning. Such legal determinations are conclusive, as SCOTUS held in Nixon v. United States (1993).

You May Also Like