Akbar-Ramani Case Not ‘Against’ an MP, May Be Transferred: Court
Citing the top court’s directions, ACMM Vishal Pahuja, on Tuesday, 13 October, informed that only matters filed against MPs and MLAs can be listed before the Rouse House Avenue Court, where the defamation case brought on by ex-MP MJ Akbar against journalist Priya Ramani was being heard so far.
10月13日星期二，ACMM Vishal Pahuja援引最高法院的指示通知说，只有针对议员和运动的案件才能在劳斯豪斯大道法院开庭审理，到目前为止，前国会议员MJ Akbar对记者Priya Ramani提起的诽谤案正在审理中。
The Supreme Court reportedly passed such directions, earlier in September, in Ashwini Kumar vs Union of India and Others, and also asked the Chief Justices of various High Courts for an action plan pertaining to early disposal of criminal cases pending against legislators.The defamation case against journalist Priya Ramani was brought on by an ex legislator, and was not one against a legislator. Therefore, ACMM Pahuja informed that the matter will be listed before a District and Sessions judge, on Thursday, for appropriate orders.
据报道，最高法院在9月初的Ashwini Kumar诉印度联盟等案件中通过了这样的指示，并要求各高等法院的首席大法官制定行动计划，尽早处理针对立法者的刑事案件。针对记者Priya Ramani的诽谤案是由一名前立法者提起的，而不是针对立法者的。因此，ACMM Pahuja通知说，这件事将于周四提交给地区和会议法官，等待适当的命令。
Incidentally, MJ Akbar’s lawyer Geeta Luthra was going to give her rebuttal, on Tuesday, to Ramani’s lawyer Rebecca John’s final arguments.
顺便说一句，MJ阿克巴尔的律师吉塔·卢特拉(Geeta Luthra)将在周二对拉马尼的律师丽贝卡·约翰(Rebecca John)的最后论点进行反驳。
Rebecca John had already concluded her final arguments in the case, on 19 September.
In a 2017 article about sexual predators in workplace, written for Vogue, Ramani had described her own ordeal of having been sexually harassed by a former boss. A year later, in the wake of the #MeToo Movement, Ramani had alleged on social media that the former boss had, in fact, been Akbar.
Akbar had subsequently filed a criminal defamation case against Ramani, asserting that Ramani’s allegations were false and that it had cost him his “stellar reputation”.
In her final arguments, John had pointed out that Ramani had pleaded “truth” as her defence, “made in good faith, in public interest, and for public good”, and had gone on to cite exceptions 1 and 9 interlinked with exception 3 to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
She had also said that Rebecca John had said that Priya Ramani was being “targeted selectively” to halt the avalanche of allegations against Akbar, and addressed claims of his “impeccable reputation”.
她还表示，丽贝卡·约翰(Rebecca John)曾表示，普里亚·拉马尼(Priya Ramani)是“有选择的目标”，以阻止针对阿克巴的雪崩指控，并回应了有关他“无可挑剔的声誉”的说法。