[MJ Akbar Vs Priya Ramani Defamation Case] Final Arguments By Sr.Ad Rebecca John [LIVE-UPDATES]
John: In 2013, a 3 member bench of SC led by Justice Lodha highlighted that despite the fact that many women continue to suffer from sexual harassment at workplace, no law has been passed by the Parliament in this regard
John: SC had said that each incident of sexual harassment at the workplace violates constitutional rights of equality
'Can we still say that this issue is not of public interest', John argues
John: SC had recognised the issue of sexual harassment at the workplace as a pressing issue that needs to be immediately addressed
John reads out relevant parts of SC's judgment in Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan
John: There can't be contestation about the fact that this case is about sexual harassment at the workplace, which is a matter of public interest
'SC had recognised this issue as a matter of paramount constitutional importance while framing Vishakha guidelines', John argues
John: It can be no one's case that speaking out against sexual harassment at workplace is against public good
'Can they deny that multiple women came out to speak against sexual harassment at workplace under the #MeToo movement', John argues
John again refers to Ramani's tweet to argue that Ramani's full evidence and the manner in which she has given statements shows that her disclosure is important for every woman facing harassment at workplace
John: After proving the truth and good faith, I will now come to the third part of the exception to defamation: public good
John: Ramani wrote in good faith, it was based on her own experience and experience of those women who came out and spoke against Akbar