Breaking away from the norm of holding hearings on sunny, weekend mornings, the cross-examination of MJ Akbar’s first witness, Miss Veenu Sandal, took place on a cloudy Monday afternoon at 2 pm at the Rouse Avenue District Court House Complex. Neither Akbar nor Ramani were present for the hearing. 

In fact, in the absence of the animated gallery members, who have been attending the hearings to support Ramani, courtroom number 203 looked less crowded. Nevertheless, a bunch of young, aspiring lawyers were in attendance. The case being heard was the defamation case filed by Akbar against journalist Priya Ramani. 

The first witness to be deposed from MJ Akbar’s end was Miss Veenu Sandal, a short, stout lady. She dressed in a blue salwar suit, and was sporting numerous rings on her fingers. Another witness, Sunil Gujral, was also present in the courtroom. 

“I have been working for over 25 years as a journalist,” said Sandal, beginning her deposition in the witness box. “I started writing for The Asian Age sometime around 1994-95. I wrote two columns for The Asian Age. One of them was on astrology and tarot cards. I wrote these columns till 2009.”

“I got to know Mr Akbar when I started writing for The Asian Age. I was writing for several publications but with regard to Mr Akbar, I was writing for The Covert and The Sunday Guardian, in addition to having written for The Asian Age.”

“I was going regularly to The Asian Age office to have my pages made and because I have knowledge of astrology and tarot cards, many of my colleagues often brought professional, personal, and career-related issues before me to seek guidance based on astrology and tarot cards.” She added: “From time to time, Mr Akbar offered suggestions on how to improve these columns for readers.”

“Not once did anybody ever mention or even say, or even hint at any inappropriate behaviour from Mr Akbar,” Sandal said.

“I have always held Mr Akbar in high esteem and I have always admired him at several levels. This included him being an author, acclaimed globally for his scholarly work, as an editor who transformed the face of Indian journalism, and as a journalist, whose analysis was extremely incisive, particularly in political matters. At the personal level too, I had great respect for him because he had many qualities. Simply by observing him both, within the office and outside, I learned a lot.”

Sandal said that on October 8, 2018, she had heard about the tweets published by Ramani, as well as the article she had written. She then checked online and read both (tweets and the article). Sandal added that she had also read the tweets dated October 10 and October 13, 2018. 

“I was shocked and it came as a huge jolt to me upon reading these, especially since Miss Priya Ramani had called Mr Akbar a predator and some other revelations that she had made in her article. I was deeply distressed to think that someone I had placed on a pedestal could do what Miss Priya Ramani had alleged,” Sandal told the court.

“His image in my eyes fell and his entire persona before my eyes was dented,” she added. “It was greatly embarrassing when friends, family members, and other people I met publicly, who knew of my association with Mr Akbar, began asking questions about what Miss Priya Ramani had tweeted and alleged. Some of those who have read her article asked questions that left me red-faced. All these embarrassing questions made me realise that his image had ended not only in my eyes but also in the eyes of others…his reputation had been damaged and dragged to the mud and was in tatters.”

“Subsequently, my head was in a spin and I thought I’ve known him for so many years and I’ve never seen or heard any such thing before, but since he was out of the country at that time, I could not check with him and question him about the allegations.”

“After he returned, I spoke to him. I told him how let down I was feeling and how every second person was asking questions about him…”

“When I spoke with him, he told me there was no truth in the allegations made by Miss Priya Ramani. He also told me that I had known him for so many years, so I could think for myself whether he could have done the things he was alleged to have done…”

“After due deliberation, I thought and realised what I had originally thought…that indeed I had never, on any occasion, where there was a wide cross-section of people also who could have said or hinted something inappropriate about him, there was not a thing which was even remotely similar or connected to the allegations of miss Priya Ramani.”

Senior Advocate Rebecca John, who is the counsel for Miss Priya Ramani, then took the floor and began her cross-examination of Sandal. But before she could begin, Akbar’s counsel went over Sandal’s statement that was being typed and made “corrections”, most of which was grammatical in nature. “Wren and Martin has been put in the coffin,” joked Luthra. 

Upon being asked by John whether she had ever met Ms Priya Ramani, Sandal replied in the negative. 

“I had not read anything prior to Ms Ramani’s tweet about any allegation against Mr Akbar by any other woman. Subsequently, I heard that there were other tweets by other women but I did not read them.” She added: “It is incorrect to suggest that I have given a false answer or that I have read other tweets and articles of other women pertaining to allegations of sexual misconduct against Mr Akbar.”

John then asked Sandal: “You said you had worked at The Asian Age for a considerably long period of time…did you interact with journalists like Prerna Singh Bindra, Ghazala Wahab, Shuma Raha, Harinder Baweja and Kadambari Wade?”

Sandal replied: “During my tenure at The Asian Age, I interacted professionally only with one, Miss Ghazala Wahab.”

Upon being asked by John whether she was aware of the allegations Ms Ghazala Wahab had mage against Mr Akbar in an article she had published in The Wire, Sandal said: “I don’t know whether Ms Ghazala Wahab wrote in The Wire or not but I was made aware that she had written an article about Mr Akbar in which she had also mentioned my name.”

“Did you deem it necessary to talk to her or confront her (Wahab) about these allegations?” asked John. “I did not deem it necessary to confront her (Wahab) or talk to her about the said allegations because I knew there was no truth in those allegations.”

“When did you speak to Mr Akbar about the allegations made by Ms Ramani—which is the subject matter of this case?” asked John.

“I spoke to Mr Akbar on his return from Africa ie October 14, 2018.”

John asked whether Sandal could provide the court with a tentative timeline, to which the latter said: “I spoke to him several times that day on the phone.” She added: “It was definitely post-lunch because I don’t wake up before that (laughs).”

John asked: “Are you aware Akbar filed this complaint the very next day?”

“I am not aware of the date when Mr Akbar filed the complaint but I am aware that he had filed one, which is why we are here (laughs weakly),” replied Sandal. She added: “It would be incorrect to suggest that I had several conversations with Mr Akbar throughout the day.”

John went on to say that there were some confrontations that needed to be sorted out. Sandal’s earlier pre-summoning statement was shown to her and she was asked by the court to compare her two statements for contradictions. 

Sandal said that it would be incorrect to state that she had deliberately given evidence that not once did any colleague of hers, said, or hinted at, any inappropriate behaviour by Mr Akbar, or that she had selectively and deliberately given evidence against Ms Priya Ramani although she was aware of other allegations. 

Sandal also added that it would be incorrect to suggest that friends, family, and others she met publicly, did not ask questions about Ms Priya Ramani’s tweets and that she (Sandal) had introduced these facts to solely fulfil the legal requirements of the case. She also said that it would be incorrect to state that she (Sandal) had deposed in favour of MJ Akbar because she professionally benefitted from her association with him.  

Decorum broke in the court over some grammatical errors while recording Sandal’s statement. Luthra pointed out that there was a “double negative”. That’s when John put her hand on Luthra’s shoulder and smiled and said: “Maine Wren and Martin nahi padhi hai,” which evoked a burst of collective laughter from the courtroom. 

“Is it correct that you wrote an article titled ‘Partnering with ghosts from another world’ that was published in The Sunday Guardian?” asked John. 

Sandal replied in the positive, that she had written such an article, which was published on October 13, 2018. 

John asked Sandal whether this article, “among other things”, was written in the context of the #MeToo movement. 

Sandal replied: “It is correct that among other things, this article was also written in the context of the #MeToo movement.” 

She added: “This article is in the context of ghosts. The #MeToo movement and Brexit movement and other contentious issues mentioned in the article were written as an introduction to ghosts, and were not the main subject matter.”

An excerpt from the article, which mentions the #MeToo and Brexit movements in the first paragraph itself, goes on to read: “What if somebody suggested that all this unrest and a growing number of unsavoury exposés are being orchestrated from the other world? That it is being in done in retaliation for or as a reaction to the callous, thoughtless manner in which the rights of the denizens of the other world are being trampled upon? Preposterous? Maybe, but it still deserves a thought in the light of recent and current happenings around the world and the well-known ability of supernatural entities to manipulate human minds and activities.”

Sandal also agreed that another article titled “Humans during day, snakes at night”, was written by her as well. 

“Is it correct that in your column published by The Sunday Guardian, you frequently write about the existence of ghosts, supernatural beings, ichaadari snakes, spirits, witches and communicating with the dead?” asked John.

Sandal looked at ACMM Samar Vishal and said: “Your honour, I don’t write about them frequently. I write about them always because my column is called ‘The Other World’ and my brief given to me by The Sunday Guardian is to write about the paranormal, which includes the supernatural.”

Sandal said that it would be incorrect to suggest that she had falsely stated that in her association with The Asian Age, “no one ever narrated or spoke to me about any inappropriate behaviour by Mr Akbar.”

“Some of the friends who spoke to me about the allegations against Mr Akbar also discussed the allegations made by other women in other tweets and articles against Mr Akbar.”

“It is incorrect to suggest that I am a biased and tutored witness.”

With this, Veenu Sandal’s cross-examination came to an end. 

The next hearing is scheduled for July 17 at 2 pm.