MJ Akbar-Priya Ramani defamation case: Verdict deferred till February 17

Ramani had, in October 2017, wrote an open letter in Vogue.in titled, To the Harvey Weinsteins of the World.

The hearing of criminal defamation case filed by former Union Minister MJ Akbar against journalist Priya Ramani was on February 10 adjourned till February 17, when the court would pronounce the judgement, news agency ANI reported.

Court adjourned the case stating that the written submissions were submitted late, according to LiveLaw.in.

The trial has been underway at Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court for almost two years and is linked to the MeToo movement against sexual abuse and sexual harassment towards women.

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Ravindra Kumar had on February 1 reserved the judgment for February 10 after Akbar and Ramani completed their arguments.

Ramani had, in October 2017, wrote an open letter in Vogue.in titled, To the Harvey Weinsteins of the World. The article addressed to an anonymous “male boss” recalled a 1994 incident that took place in a hotel room.

A year later on October 8, 2018, at the height of MeToo movement in India, Ramani revealed in a tweet that "male boss" she had written about in 2017 was MJ Akbar.

On October 15, 2017, Akbar, then a Union Minister, filed a complaint against Ramani naming her as the sole accused of allegedly defaming him by accusing him of sexual misconduct decades ago when he was a journalist. Akbar claimed that an article caused damage to his “unblemished reputation” for 50 years.

Two days later, Akbar resigned as the Union minister.

Akbar has denied all the allegations of sexual harassment by all the women who came forward during MeToo campaign against him.

READ: MeToo: Court grants bail to scribe Priya Ramani in defamation case by M J Akbar

On February 25, 2019, the Court granted bail to Priya Ramani.

Ramani’s lawyer, senior advocate Rebecca John, concluded her arguments on February 1, according to reports, contending that the onus to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt was on the complainant, and that she had “crossed the threshold” of proving her defence beyond preponderance of probabilities.