Prof K Nageshwar: Court verdict on MJ Akbar defamation case (Video)

You can still enroll as a voter for MLC elections with this link: http://ceotserms2.telangana.gov.in/MLC/form18.aspx MJ '' , ? || Court verdict on MJ Akbar defamation case || The acquittal of journalist Priya Ramani on 17 February in the criminal defamation case against her by former Union Minister MJ Akbar has been widely hailed as an extremely important moment in the fight against sexual harassment at the workplace. Not only was this particular attempt by Akbar to silence one of his accusers (and intimidate all the others) thwarted by the courts verdict, it should also make other men with power and influence think twice before seeking to use legal action to suppress news of their misdemeanours. Because proving a statement is defamatory is only half the story. Criminal defamation is defined in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code as making or publishing any imputation about a person intending to harm, or knowing it will harm the reputation of a person. Any statement or article criticising a person or accusing them of any sort of problematic behaviour will obviously lower their reputation hence this is always emphasised in legal notices and complaints to courts alleging defamation. However, the law recognises that a persons reputation cant be a shield against their own bad behaviour, and that there can be various circumstances when outing this bad behaviour is in the public interest. Which is why Section 499 of the IPC also prescribes several exceptions to claims of defamation. If a person accused of defamation is able to show their statement falls within one of those exceptions, this becomes a successful defence for them, leading to their acquittal. Ramani argued that she had two such defences on her side: truth and the public good. Judge Pandey expressly accepted Ramanis defence of truth, based on her own testimony about the day in 1993 when Akbar allegedly called her to his hotel room at the Oberoi for an interview, as well as the corroborating testimony of her friend Niloufer Venkataraman, whom she told about the incident when it happened. PROVING A DEFENCE CANNOT BE MADE INTO AN IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN Crucially, the judge upheld the settled position of law that to prove any of the defences to a charge of defamation, the standard of proof is a preponderance of probabilities. This means the person doesnt have to definitively prove their defence beyond all reasonable doubt; they just have to show that on weighing the evidence available, their version of events basically has a more than 50 percent chance to be true. As a result, even though Akbar denied the allegations about what happened at the hotel and there was no other direct evidence which could prove Ramanis version of events, Ramani had still done enough to prove her defence of truth. It was especially interesting to see that the judge acknowledged that: Most of the time, the offence of sexual harassment and sexual abuse committed in the close doors or privately.[sic] This is an important thing to note for other defamation cases against a woman alleging sexual harassment at the workplace, which often come down to a he said-she said situation. Following the reasoning of the court here, the lack of additional evidence will not be detrimental to her arguments; and as long as her testimony is not shaken, her defence of truth will still stand. https://www.thequint.com/news/law/priya-ramani-acquittal-judgment-analysis-me-too-impact-truth-defence-defamation-mj-akbar-appeal-whole-article