By choosing to file a criminal defamation case only against Priya Ramani, M.J. Akbar makes no effort to hide his intentions.
There is no better time than now to revive the campaign for decriminalising defamation.
Former union minister M.J. Akbar, despite resigning from his ministerial post in the wake of multiple allegations of sexual harassment, is brazening it out in court against journalist Priya Ramani through a criminal defamation case against her.
Akbar’s battery of lawyers only had to show to judge Samar Vishal that Ramani’s tweet had “a wide reach based on the number of retweets” to get him to accept the case. It’s that easy to get the ball rolling against those who dare to speak up.
Also read: MJ Akbar sues Priya Ramani for criminal defamation over sexual harassment allegations
Weapon to kill #MeToo
Criminal defamation is the weapon of choice for Ambani, Adani to silence their critics and now for Abkar and Alok Nath too against #MeToo.
This could dangerously end up killing #MeToo that has made women open up despite all odds. For decades, women had few avenues to voice this anguish, but social media has changed the rules of the game. It takes a tweet and a hashtag to bring down powerful men, and this has sent strong signals to predators.
Ramani and over a dozen women have accused Akbar of a crime that could land him in jail for three years. This wasn’t simply a name-calling or character assassination attempt. But the law is allowing him to threaten Ramani by filing a case that could land her in jail for two years even before allegations against him are looked into.
Civil remedy exists for restoring loss of reputation, and hefty fine against those making false allegations is a deterrent. However, criminal remedy would mean jail term, which is physically restricting the liberty of those making the allegations.
Also read: Talk Point: Is it democratic to have harsh criminal law over civil remedies against defamation?
Criminal defamation is problematic also because it presumes a malicious intention behind statements that are likely to damage reputation. The cases rarely result in convictions but the process is a punishment.
By choosing to file the case only against Ramani, even when many others have made similar allegations, Akbar makes no effort to hide his intentions. This is to harass, intimidate and to simply silence voices.
Priya Ramani is the mascot, who symbolises the challenge to his male impunity.
Ramani, who is not based in Delhi, will be worn out by just attending the proceedings in a court, which is a 5-minute drive from Parliament for MP Akbar. What’s worse is that Akbar will not even have to attend the proceedings and his team of lawyers will handle it for him. Exemptions from personal appearances for those charged are possible, but depend on the judge’s discretion. Although invariably, judges exempt women from having to personally appear in every hearing.
Missed chance
In 2016, the Supreme Court passed the chance to repeal Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code that makes criminal defamation an offence punishable with a two-year jail term.
A two-judge bench of the court headed by Justice Dipak Misra upheld the law that makes defamation a criminal offence, confirming that it is not in conflict with the right to free speech. In a flawed verdict, Misra, who has a questionable track record in understanding free speech, equated the right to reputation to a fundamental right.
Also read: The problem is not Kejriwal’s apologies, it is India’s defamation law
Legal experts have pointed out glaring errors in the verdict, including the fact that it deliberately overlooked established precedent.
Way forward
India is in the company of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, and South American dictatorships in continuing with criminal defamation. In 2016, Zimbabwe, which inherited the same British colonial legacy as India, also declared criminal defamation unconstitutional.
In keeping the law in our books, we risk Indian politicians taking a cue from Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who filed defamation cases against multiple individuals for calling him a “lightbulb”.
Despite the apex court’s verdict in 2016, it is worth making yet another attempt to decriminalise criminal defamation.
The Supreme Court while scrapping Section 377 also declared that colonial laws will not automatically be presumed valid and constitutional. This helped the court to decriminalise adultery. Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, which define and impose jail term for criminal defamation, fall under that category.
MP Tathagata Sathpathy had introduced a private member’s bill in Parliament last year to repeal criminal defamation.
Criminal defamation is nothing but legal scare tactics, and it is #TimesUp for this colonial law as well.
This is an updated version of the article.
When you silent on unethical behavior of someone your close, you support the act and encourage the one doing so, may it be wrong depends on your minds thinking and your body behavior. Whether you like it or not also depends on your actions or reactions. If you have not reacted despite the fact of bad intentions, you promote the crime & criminal both to repeat it again. If you are honest and feel something unethical behavior of some one, oppose it soon when you feel wrong and instruct not to repeat it again. I think he/she will change your mind and respect you. If you are silent at a time it means you agreed and permit. But after decade(s) you blame someone despite the fact that you have no relation or contact now. You are blackmailing jealously and want to destroy his or her reputation only for your satisfaction not for benefiting the mass. And this should have not to be allowed by the court at this stage.
I would say that the author is wrong for at least 2 reasons.
firstly, civil cases in India are very slow. If your reputation is besmirched, then a civil case lasting 10 or 15 years is just not going to work. Criminal cases go relatively fast, and finish in 2 or 3 years.
The other reason is if you sue somebody for X rupees, you have to deposit a fee of some percentage. That is also a burden if you are defending your name. If civil case is pursued, it is reasonable you should ask for a crippling or huge amount (as a form of punishment) and if you fail, you should pay the litigating costs. In this matter you can see how it works in UK or even the US.
Anyway in a 3rd world place like india where reputations are besmirched routinely and people are ruined, it is not the time to get rid of criminal defamation until and unless extensive reforms happen in judicial system.
Plz do not mix up the issue. Raising such a demand now like decriminalization of defamation case at this juncture will take away the shine & spirit of the Mee too campaign & by knowing the risk still they have come out so boldly against the mighty is a courageous move & Priya had led from front the front & ready to face the challenge. Saying that she lives in Bangalore etc., cannot attend the court hearings in person regularly etc., & court can waive off her personal chances are contradictory statement & help the opponents to play on the weak point of the defendant& project as Judicial prejudice. Already She has gathered sympathy, support & respect by bringing out such an major issue among the general public. Let the court decide about her personal appearance don’t spoil the chance by claiming as if it may not & raising the decriminalization of the defamation cases who knows this case may lead to removal of such an act. Which is bound to go today or tomorrow. Lets not worry about the battery of Lawyers they can only argue but cannot write Judgement.
The Judge you mentioned was earlier alleged he is partial, prejudice, etc., by the opposition parties, the way he heard their case on political instability in forming Karnataka Govt., at an unearthly hour, he became overnight impartial, non-biased, etc., such an unearthly hour conducting the court was not called for as present CJI has made clear which of the cases are really emergency that one can be heard on emergency basis, that s sensible. Lets us not pre-judge the Judges. Let the Judiciary play their role, hereafter the matter is subjudice.
This person by appointing the battery of Lawyers has lost the sympathy of the people, especially, the one fence sitters who were in dilemma to support his claims or not. If it is genuine, as he claimed it is falls accusation to kill his political aspiration etc., A good moderate lawyer or law-firm could have enough to handle his case.
Why one should accept defeat without going to trial. Even Priya goes to jail her sacrifice has brought a courage & respect for the women for their cause & the entire industries like Film, Media, & Corporate world are acknowledge these things are prevail & taken & taking genuine corrective action without further delay irrespective of their stature, intelligence, achievements and also taking serious views & action in adapting & implementing Vishaka guidelines to curb such practices & strict monitoring on such activities. Tx.
As long as it serves the interest of the Crony , Neta ,Babu ,Judge …i.e those who oppress us this will remain . CJI Gogoi has a chance ,but my guess is that if Chanrachud becomes CJI ,he will be like a demolition truck out to wipe out ALL these archaic laws . Keep your fingers crossed . Remember Loya ?
Basically what the author is saying is that I must have the right to make allegations and ruin careers of any person, but I must not suffer any consequences and the person who suffers ruin must simply put up with it. Now that law has been used by an accused to defend himself, the law must be changed so that they can go on with their allegations with impunity.