[LIVE-UPDATES] [MJ Akbar Vs Priya Ramani Defamation Case] Final Arguments By Senior Advocate Rebecca John

John: the defence has discharged the burden of good faith by putting Ramani on the stand, letting her withstand cross-examination.

'She has not feigned ignorance like Akbar, she has come forward and shared her story', John argues

John: complainant may deliberately choose to misinterpret the structure of the Vogue article, but Ramani made it clear that the entire article doesn't relate to Akbar

John: argument of the complainant saying Ramani should've been more cautious doesn't stand

Law says due care and not 'caution', John argues

John: argument of the complainant saying Ramani should've been more cautious doesn't stand

Law says due care and not 'caution', John argues

John: There was a long delay in the implementation of Vishakha guidelines, Ramani can't be made to bear the brunt of it

John: Statute of limitation argument of the complainant doesn't apply to this case. Ramani hasn't initiated any criminal proceedings against Akbar. Criminal law puts limitation only on the prosecution, not on the defence. 

John: Assuming there was a bandwagon, then why selectively file a complaint against Ramani?

John: Ramani didn't jump onto any bandwagon. There was an avalanche of cases against Akbar, her's was just one of it.

'This was not a trade union or bandwagon, these were the women who came out to share their painful testimonies', John argues

John: Silence can't refute Ramani's truth. She's not filing any FIR for the court to test the delay of the FIR on the ground of credibility

'Her silence has been adequately explained by her', John argues

John points out that Vishakha Guidelines didn't exist in 1993.

Even after the guidelines came into place, judiciary and media took a long time to implement these guidelines