'By Keeping Silent, I Could've Avoided The Subsequent Targeting, But That Would Not Have Been The Right Thing To Do': Priya Ramani

Senior Journalist Priya Ramani was cross-examined today before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Samar Vishal in a criminal defamation case filed against her by BJP leader MJ Akbar. The cross-examination was conducted by Senior Counsel Geeta Luthra.

Before her cross-examination, Ms Ramani finished the last leg of her chief examination by highlighting the reason behind telling her story. She said:

'It was important and necessary for women to speak up about sexual harassment at the workplace. Many of us are brought up to believe that silence is a virtue'

She also told the court that the present litigation has brought great personal cost to her and it was important for her to speak her truth. She said:

'By keeping silent, I could've avoided the subsequent targeting, but that would not have been the right thing to do.'

Ms Luthra started the cross-examination by asking Ms Ramani exact details about the dates of joining all the organisations she has worked at and the exact headlines of the articles she has published. While Ms Ramani gave information about her joining all the magazines she has worked for as well as the nature of her work there, she said she couldn't remember the exact headlines of her articles.

Ms Luthra then asked that Ms Ramani as to whether her 'so-called' dream of becoming a journalist was contingent upon being hired by the Asian Age, and whether she was aware of other publication houses as well?

Ms Ramani replied by saying that her dream of becoming a journalist was not 'so-called'. Moreover, at that time working at the Asian Age seemed as the most suitable option for realising that dream.

During the course of her examination, Ms Luthra had put across various suggestions to Ms Ramani which insinuated the following:

1. The she had maliciously and deliberately wrote that Vogue article to malign the reputation of Mr Akbar

2. That her Vogue article in its entirety referred to Mr Akbar and the distinction created by her in her chief examination is artificial.

Ms Ramani refuted all these suggestions and highlighted the fact that whatever she has written is true and only the first four paragraphs of her Vogue article referred to Mr Akbar. The rest of the article was written in the context of the larger MeToo Movement.

Ms Luthra then asked Ms Ramani as to whether she was aware of the provision for sexual harassment in Indian Penal Laws including the IPC. To this, Ms Ramani replied that she's not aware of the provision in IPC but she is aware of the Vishakha Guidelines and Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act.

Through this line of questions, Ms Luthra attempted to ask Ms Ramani as to why didn't she raise her voice in 2013 when a lot of other women were also raises their voices. Ms Ranani, however, replied that she's aware of the fact that post the Nirbhaya case, many women spoke up about the violence against themselves.

The remaining part of Ms Ramani's cross-examination will be continued on October 24.