MJ Akbar not a man of stellar reputation: What court said when acquitting Priya Ramani

Women cannot be punished for speaking up about sexual abuse on the pretext of criminal complaint of defamation, ruled Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Ravindra Kumar Pandey of Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court, acquitting journalist Priya Ramani in the criminal defamation case filed against her by former Union Minister MJ Akbar. She had accused him of sexual harassment during the Me Too movement of 2018. The judge added that the right of reputation cannot be protected at the cost of the right of life and dignity of a woman as is guaranteed under Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (right to personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution. 

Priya Ramani had deposed that she had applied for a job at Asian Age in Mumbai, in 1993, and was called by MJ Akbar for an interview at Mumbai’s Hotel Oberoi. She told the court that he called her to his room, she was uncomfortable but she went. She deposed in court that Akbar asked her personal questions that made her uncomfortable — whether she had a boyfriend, whether she was married — and then made himself a drink. She deposed that Akbar moved to a small two-seater sofa next to the bed in the room and asked to come and sit in the tiny space next to him. She said that she was already feeling un­nerved by his inappropriate behaviour and at that time, she was concerned for her physical safety.

She also told the court that she got the job, and accepted it and asked to be posted in the Mumbai office. She never met Akbar alone in the Mumbai office or the Delhi office, and only interacted with him during edit meetings.

Legitimising Priya Ramani’s account that she shared 25 years after she faced the sexual harassment, the judgment says, “The woman has a right to put her grievance at any platform of her choice and even after decades.” This is a very important observation by the court which gives India’s Me Too movement a shot in the arm as many women are often questioned: “why did you not speak up when the incident happened?”

“The time has come for our society to understand the sexual abuse and sexual ­harassment and its implications on victims. The society should understand that an abusive person is just like the rest of the other person and he too has family and friends. He can also be a well-respected person in society. The victims of the sexual­ abuse not even speak a word about abuse for many years because sometimes she herself has no idea that she is a victim of abuse,” the judgment said.

Ghazala Wahab’s testimony cemented Priya’s defence

It was Ghazala’s testimony to the court that cemented Priya’s defence in the case. Ghazala had recounted in court that she was molested and sexually harassed by her then boss MJ Akbar in his office when she was working at The Asian Age. Citing Ghazala’s deposition, the court accepted Priya Ramani’s contention that Akbar was not a man of stellar reputation and that Akbar’s claim that he has an “impeccable and stellar reputation” was “demolished” because of Ghazala Wahab’s testimony, who took the stand in Priya’s defence during the trial.

“It cannot be ignored that most of the time, the offence of sexual ­harassment and sexual abuse are committed behind closed 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,” the court has said in its judgment. 

The court also took into consideration of the “systematic abuse at the workplace” that when Priya Ramani and Ghazala Wahab faced sexual harassment at the hands of MJ Akbar, there was no mechanism to redress the grievance of sexual­ harassment at the workplace.

Social stigma prevents women from disclosing harassment

The court also noted that women choose not to lodge a complaint of sexual­ harassment due to the social stigma attached. “The victim may keep believing that she is at fault and victim may live with that shame for years or for decades. Most of the women who suffer abuse do not speak up about it or against it for simple reason “The Shame” or the social stigma attached with the sexual ­harassment and abuse (sic),” the judge said. 

The court also added that it is important to note that an abusive person can also be a “well respected person society,” and it is time that society understands the implications of sexual harassment on the victims.

The judge said that the sexual abuse takes away the dignity and self-confidence of a woman and that “the attack on the character of sex ­abuser or offender by a victim of sexual abuse, 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 judge also quoted from the Hindu epics Mahabharata and the Ramayana and said that it is “shameful that the incidents of crime and violence against women are happening in the country where mega epics such as “Mahabharata” and “Ramayana” were written around the theme of respect for women.”

Quoting Economic Survey Report 2020-­2021, the judge said the report recommends that to ensure more women join the work force, apart from the investment in the institutional support and other areas, a safe work environment needs to be made for women.

Woman cannot be punished with defamation for speaking up

“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 judge said. 

In conclusion, the court ruled, that Akbar's case of criminal defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Priya Ramani is "not proved and she is acquitted for the same.” The court has directed Priya to furnish a bail bond as per procedure under Section 437 of the CrPC. The section states that a person who has been acquitted must furnish a bail bond which will be valid for six months in order to be released from custody, and this is to ensure that the acquitted person is available if an appeal is filed in the future.