“Irrelevant” is how ex-Union Minister MJ Akbar’s counsel Geeta Luthra categorised nearly all the questions put forth to her client during his cross-examination by Priya Ramani’s lawyer Rebecca John during Monday’s hearing at the Rouse Avenue District Court Complex. A majority of these questions pertained to allegations made against Akbar by various women in the journalism industry—some of whom were hired by Akbar himself during his tenure as editor of The Asian Age.

Journalist Priya Ramani called out Akbar during India’s #MeToo wave in 2018, and had pleaded not guilty in the defamation case initiated by Akbar back in October 2018. On May 20, the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Samar Vishal heard the defamation case filed by Akbar against Ramani in Court Number 203 on the second floor of the building.

The gates to the newly-constructed Rouse Avenue District Court Complex open at 9.30 am. Priya Ramani and her husband arrived well before time, at about 9.20 am, and waited outside the court premises. She wore a dark green floral-print kurta with silver-strapped slippers and held a scribbling pad in one hand, a black handbag slung across her right shoulder. The duo walked on the footpath outside the court premises, talking to each other while waiting for the gates to open.

The outlay of Court Number 203 is such: Two witness boxes are located on the left and right side of the room. The left box is where MJ Akbar is supposed to sit during his deposition. ACMM Samar Vishal sits on his chair in between and above the two witness stands, with “Satyameva Jayate” emblazoned in gold on the wall behind him. A table with four computers stands between the two witness stands, meant to maintain court records and minutes. A longer table made of wood is behind it, with three orange-cushioned chairs, where both counsels sit. Two rows of elongated sofas sit behind this table, to the back of the room, where gallery members can sit during the proceedings.

Ramani, along with her friends, family, and supporters, waited in the hallway outside the courtroom till 10 am, which is when the hearing was scheduled to begin.

Everyone, including ACMM Samar Vishal, had taken their respective places within the courtroom by 10 am, but the proceedings were delayed as both Akbar and his counsel Geeta Luthra were not yet present.  So, as the courtroom filled, ACMM Samar Vishal granted a 10-minute extension for the proceedings to begin. He sat in his chair, looking bored yet eager, staring at the door.

Akbar entered the courtroom at 10:13 am, followed by his usual entourage of security personnel. He wore a sea-green shirt with a sleeveless jacket over it, and black pants and black formal shoes. A gold pen hung from his shirt pocket, while his glasses were kept in the front pocket of his jacket. The first thing he did as he walked to take his place in the witness stand was apologise to the court. Someone from the gallery said in a hushed tone: “Why does he always come with so much security?” “Maybe he’s scared,” came the response.

Finally, the proceedings kicked off.

Senior advocate Geeta Luthra began by reiterating what she had said during the last hearing: that the examination should take place in a question-answer format. ACMM Samar Vishal told her this was a summons trial case, but Luthra said this could not be a blanket decision since there may be irrelevant questions that are posed to her client. Samar Vishal told her that if he did disallow a question, he would write the specific question and/or note down Luthra’s objection.

Luthra went on: “Your honour will hear that every time something was done (in court), there was derisive laughter (from the gallery). They have to maintain decorum.” ACMM Samar Vishal looked at Akbar, and said: “You are still under oath, so do speak the truth.”

Resuming the cross-questioning from where it ended during the last hearing, senior advocate Rebecca John asked MJ Akbar whether he had received a call from Priya Ramani from the reception desk at the Oberoi Hotel in Nariman Point, to which Akbar said he hadn’t. John put to him that his answer was false and that Akbar had asked Ramani to come up to his room. “It is incorrect to suggest that I called Miss Ramani to my room,” Akbar responded.

John pointed out that at the time of the incident, back in December 1992, he (Akbar) was 42 years old and Priya Ramani was 23. At this point, Luthra loudly objected that these were two questions clubbed into one and that they needed to be asked as two separate questions.

John went on to ask Akbar whether he was aware that this was Ramani’s first job interview after completing her graduation. “I don’t know,” he said.

John said: “I put it to you that when Miss Priya Ramani came to your room, you opened the door.” “It is false,” Akbar said. At this point, Ramani’s counsel objected to some whispering taking place between Akbar and a lawyer from his team who was standing near the witness box. “Please do not whisper … why do you have to stand so close to the witness,” remarked John.

John said the hotel bedroom was small and “intimate” and that the bed in it was “turned down for the night”. Akbar said it would be wrong to suggest that it was so. Luthra interrupted and objected to this line of questioning, stating that “since [the] witness has already said this didn’t happen, further questions are irrelevant”.

John asked Akbar whether there was a table and two chairs in the room and whether him and Priya Ramani were seated at this table. Akbar said no. Without making eye contact with John, he also denied that the conversation between him and Ramani was more personal than professional. In response to John’s question, Akbar said he had not asked Ramani about her family and why she had gone abroad to study. He claimed it was incorrect to say that he had asked Ramani if she was married, and also that he had knowledge of how important the job was to her since it was her first job. He also said it would be incorrect to further suggest that Ramani did not want to be trapped in an arranged marriage.

When asked by John whether he (Akbar) had asked Ramani whether she likes music, and if he began singing old Hindi songs when Ramani said yes, Akbar denied it. At this point, the gallery started laughing quietly.

John asked Akbar whether he then offered Ramani an alcoholic drink from the hotel’s mini bar and that she had refused it. Akbar said it would be wrong to suggest so. He also denied that he had asked Ramani to come and sit next to him on a small two-seater sofa and that he had told her, while she was leaving the hotel room, that someone from his office would be in touch with her in a few days.

At this point, Ramani, who was standing against the wall on the far right of the courtroom, began taking notes on her scribbling pad.

Luthra tried to interject with an objection, saying “as alleged” should be put down on record with respect to John’s questions on the incidents at the hotel, but ACMM Vishal made an impatient gesture with his hands.

John said that Akbar, at that time, did not ask Ramani about her writing skills, knowledge of current affairs, or her ability to enter the world of journalism. Before Akbar could answer, ACMM Samar Vishal, who gauged what Akbar’s response would be, humorously looked at Luthra and asked: “Shall I answer the question?” and then laughed. He then dictated to the person typing the records of the proceedings: “Since there was no meeting, therefore it is wrong to suggest that I did not ask Miss Priya Ramani about her writing skills, her knowledge of current affairs, or her ability to enter the world of journalism.”

John said to Akbar: “I put it to you as Miss Priya Ramani left the hotel room, she was unnerved with your behaviour as it was sexually coloured.” Staring at the empty chair in front of him, Akbar said since the meeting did not take place and that he did not meet her on that day, he didn’t know whether she felt unnerved by his behaviour or not. Luthra interrupted and said that being “unnerved” was a matter of opinion. However, ACMM Samar Vishal told Luthra: “State of mind is not an opinion—it is a fact.”

John and Luthra broke into verbal combat at this point as Luthra loudly accused her of “putting words in the witness’s mouth”.

John went on: “The answers given by you today are false and have been tutored.” MJ Akbar denied this.

John said: “Do you recall Miss Priya Ramani was offered a job in the Delhi office of The Asian Age back in 1994, which she accepted?” Akbar said: “I’m not so sure that is true,” adding that the matter was 25 years old. Heavy noises of “tch-tch” and “jeez” echoed from the gallery. Ramani herself let out a barely audible gasp of surprise when Akbar said that to the “best of his recollection, she was working at the Bombay office”.

John said: “Now I put to you that 10 days after joining the Delhi office, she put in a request to move to the Bombay office.” Akbar said he could not specifically recall so, and said Ramani could have only moved to Mumbai—if it did happen—with the permission of the paper’s editor(s).

John said, “I put to you that in October 1994, Miss Priya Ramani quit The Asian Age and joined Reuters.” Akbar responded: “Yes, possibly correct.” She asked him whether, as the editor of The Asian Age, he was primarily required to sit in the Delhi office. Akbar said yes.

“I put it to you that after Miss Priya Ramani left Asian Age, she did not work with you again,” continued John. Akbar swiftly responded: “Like so many others.”John changed her line of questioning. “Are you aware that Miss Priya Ramani has been a journalist for more than 20 years?” Akbar said he was not aware of her career details.

John circled around to a different—but very important—point. “Are you aware that in 2017, numerous women including actresses, models, employees and others belonging to the entertainment industry in America had made public allegations of sexual harassment against Harvey Weinstein?” Akbar responded in the positive and at this point, began slightly fidgeting in his seat. He was still looking straight in front, except for when he was stealing glances at ACMM Samar Vishal. That’s when his eyes widened.

An article (Exhibit A) was shown to Akbar. “Is it correct that the article is titled ‘To the Harvey Weinsteins of the world’?”

Akbar responded: “It is self-evident.”

Luthra objected but was shushed by a lawyer on Ramani’s team. “I am only saying that this is irrelevant to the issue,” she told the court.

“Are you aware that the URL of the Vogue article is ‘harvey-weinsteins-open-letter-sexual-harassment’?” John asked Akbar, who once again said it was “self-evident”. And once again, Luthra objected to John’s line of questioning. However, Samar Vishal said: “It is only [a] clarification.” Once again, verbal combat broke out between the two counsels. “I have raised legal objections that are within my right,” said Luthra.

By this time, women who comprised the gallery were fanning themselves with notebooks that they held in their hands. The courtroom was packed to the brim and the door had to be left open since people were queuing up till the hallway outside.

John showed a tweet by Ramani to Akbar. She said that in the Vogue article, only one section of it—which starts from “You taught me my first workplace lesson..” till “…I would never be in a room alone with you again”—referred to MJ Akbar and not the rest of the article, which was written for other male bosses.

Luthra objected. “They can’t try and get out a portion of it,” she told the court.

Akbar put on his brown-framed glasses to read the Vogue article that was shown to him. He responded that it would be incorrect to suggest that only a part of the said article referred to him. He said the published version did not have his name but later in her tweet, Ramani confirmed that the whole piece was about him. “If being such a senior person he hasn’t understood the article,” began John, but was reprimanded by Luthra who said the counsel cannot make such personal statements.

John addressed Akbar: “I put it to you that the remaining portion of the article refers to other women with other male bosses, in particular, Harvey Weinstein.” There was whispering from one of Akbar’s lawyers who was standing next to him. “The question is irrelevant,” Akbar said. John laughed and said: “That prompting was excellent.” The gallery laughed out loud and Luthra said: “We don’t need derisive comments from people.”

“Please keep quiet or I will take harsh action,” said ACMM Samar Vishal to the court in the immediate aftermath of the laughter.

John then cited a part of the Vogue article, which is where she said the break happens. “Do the formality of defending it,” said Samar Vishal. John responded: “It is a very robust defence—not a formality.”

John asked Akbar whether he was aware that various articles on Harvey Weinstein and his unwelcome sexual encounters with Hollywood actors, etc. were extensively investigated and written about in 2017. Akbar responded in the positive. However, Luthra objected, saying this was once again irrelevant. “The case is still sub-judice,” she said. ACMM Samar Vishal said it was relevant and sustained her objection.

John asked similar questions with respect to articles penned by several other journalists. “I have not read any of these articles,” responded Akbar. She then put it to Akbar that certain portions from Ramani’s Vogue article were extracted from the above articles. Akbar said he had not read the other articles.

“Obviously you haven’t,” someone muttered from the gallery.

It was now an hour and 45 minutes into the cross-examination and Akbar looked visibly tired. He answered John’s questions by saying he was not always aware that portions in Ramani’s Vogue article referred to other male bosses. “The article begins with ‘male boss’ and not with ‘male bosses’,” he said, denying that “male boss” was a generic term.

“I put it to you that when Miss Priya Ramani tweeted and said he didn’t ‘do’ anything, she did it in a sarcastic sense,” John told Akbar. The latter laughed. Ramani’s counsel asked why he was the one now indulging in “derisive laughter”.

John then referred to tweets by others quoting Ramani’s article. Akbar responded that it was self-evident that others had tweeted, but he had only relied on the tweet by Priya Ramani. Referring to tweets by Prashanto K Roy and Shuma Raha, John said: “I put it to you that these tweets and retweets also made allegations against you.” Akbar put on his reading glasses once again, had a look at the paper in front of him, and said the allegations made against him in these tweets were false.

John said, “I put it to you that on October 6, 2018, Gazala Wahab made a tweet ‘I wonder when the floodgates will open about @mjakbar’.” Akbar said he had not read the tweet. She asked him whether it was correct that Priya Ramani had tagged several women in her tweet. “It is self-evident,” said Akbar.

Luthra objected, saying these were two questions and had to be asked separately. “I know how to ask my questions,” retorted John, and went on, only to be cut off by Luthra once again. Slightly losing her cool, John said: “What kind of bizarre actions are coming up? I can understand she (Luthra) objecting to a document. But it is part of my defence as to how many women made allegations against MJ Akbar.”

Luthra said this was a defamation case by MJ Akbar against Priya Ramani and that such questions cannot be asked. “They can only come within the four corners of defence of criminal defamation.” However, John, referring to Section 138 of the Evidence Act, said the cross-examination need not be confined to questions asked in Chief Examination. “I can test the veracity of MJ Akbar’s statements,” she said.

John then referred to a similar tweet by Shunali K Shroof. Akbar said he had not read it.

“Mr Akbar, will you confirm whether Gazala Wahab worked with you at The Asian Age in Delhi as a sub-editor and chief sub-editor between August 1994 and January 1998?” John asked.

“Yes she did work with me,” he replied.

“Will you also confirm whether Shonali K Shroof worked as a reporter in Delhi at The Asian Age in 1999-2000?”

“I cannot remember,” said Akbar.

John concluded: “I put it you she worked as a reporter between 1999-2000 and you are deliberately evading the question.”

The court broke for a 10-minute break. Akbar was smiling as he got up and walked out, flanked by his security on either side. During the break, a member of Ramani’s counsel joked that now, even before the honour could, the witness had become an expert and declared that the question is irrelevant. “It depends on who the witness is,” said ACMM Samar Vishal, humouring him. However, John said: “It should not (be so). Before your honour, everyone is equal.”

Akbar and Luthra were once again late in returning after the break while the court waited. Then proceedings resumed.

John showed Akbar an article about him in Firstpost and asked him whether it is correct that the article carried a tweet by Harinder Baweja. “It is correct,” he said. “Are you aware that Baweja is a senior journalist working with Hindustan Times?” Yes, came the answer.

Nearly three hours into the cross-examination now, proceedings had slowed down. It seemed like all parties involved were tired. John drew Akbar’s attention to a tweet by Shuma Raha and asked whether he had seen it before. Akbar said yes. In continuation to Raha’s first tweet, John showed another tweet by her, which referred to an incident in 1995 at the Taj Bengal in Kolkata. “I have not read them,” said Akbar.

When asked whether he was aware that Raha was a former associate editor at The Telegraph, Akbar said: “I cannot recall … these are matters of 25-30 years ago. I have not seen any complaints.”

John showed Akbar tweets by Shutapa Paul and Kadambari M Wade. Paul had referred to an encounter with MJ Akbar eight years ago. “Can you confirm if Shutapa Paul worked for you at India Today, Kolkata, as principal correspondent from 2010-11?” she asked Akbar, who responded in the positive.

“Will you confirm that Kadambari Wade worked as a sports reporter at The Asian Age in 1998-1999?” Akbar said he could not recall. John asked Akbar if he was aware that Kadambari Wade was the first woman sports editor at a mainstream newspaper, Hindustan Times. Akbar repeated that he could not recall.

Luthra’s objection came immediately. “This is wholly irrelevant. If your honour may just note how far it is going from the actual trial. Nobody is saying Section 138 doesn’t allow asking questions … but asking questions should have a limit.” Luthra also mispronounced Ramani’s name and addressed her as “Priya Rameeni”. John told her that she could read out the tweets “and it would be embarrassing”.

The court decided to let the cross-examination continue.

John showed Akbar an article by Ghazala Wahab published by The Wire. “Are you aware that Ghazala Wahab wrote an article against you in The Wire?”

Akbar responded in the positive.

“When you came back from Africa in October 2018, did you make a statement to the press about these allegations?”

“Yes I did,” said Akbar.

“Are you aware that pursuant to your statement, Ghazala Wahab wrote another article on October 15, 2018 rubbishing the claims made by you?”

Akbar said he did not know about the subsequent article.

As the proceedings neared the end, it turned out that John had kept the best questions for the last. Or maybe it was just sheer timing.

“Will you confirm that Majlie de Puy Kamp worked as an intern at The Asian Age in 2006-2007?” she asked Akbar. John was having trouble pronouncing de Puy Kamp’s name, and a paper was shown to Akbar which had de Puy Kamp’s by-line on it. “Ah … yes,” said Akbar. He confirmed that Kamp had worked as an intern during that period at The Asian Age. When asked by John, Akbar said he had not read an October 12, 2018 story carried by Huffington Post India on the harassment faced by de Puy Kamp.

“Is it correct that you apologised to Majlie’s father when he confronted you about the incident in this email?” John said, showing the contents of the email.

In response, Akbar began stuttering and sounded slightly hesitant. “My response in the email…” He paused to clear his throat. One of his council lawyers standing in close proximity started whispering something and Ramani’s counsel members pointed out the same. However, John said: “Let them … they don’t have any idea of what is going on.”

Akbar said he could not confirm the contents of the email, but reiterated that there was no question of sexual harassment. “I recall that there might have been a mention of some misunderstanding, which was accepted,” he added.

After another argument between John and Luthra, at about 1.08 pm, the latter said that she would be walking out since “my learned friend is always indulging in commentary.” However, Samar Vishal said: “You are interrupting your own witness.”

At about 1.10 pm, Samar Vishal closed evidence for the day and asked both the counsels if they would like to continue post lunch. But before anyone could answer, Akbar agreed to do so. However, after a lot of shuffling between two prospective dates, the next hearing was scheduled for July 6 at 10 am. MJ Akbar’s cross-examination will continue then.