[MJ Akbar Vs Priya Ramani Defamation Case] Final Arguments By Sr.Ad Rebecca John [LIVE-UPDATES]

John: When Ramani faced harassment, there was a vacuum in law regarding sexual harassment at workplace

John: Definitely, Asian Age back then didn't have any mechanism for sexual harassment at workplace

'We're also aware of the tardy pace shown by the Parliament in passing a legislation on this issue', John submits

John: It's only in 2015 that SC issued guidelines for the gender sensitisation of judiciary on the administrative side

'Even we were not prepared. These judgements show a long journey of a matter pertaining to public good', John argues

John: it's only after the amendment in 2013, that colourable sexual remarks were brought under the ambit of sexual harassment under IPC

John: Ramani couldn't have invoked POSH at that time as it was not in place, neither she could've invoked provisions of IPC as didn't provide any redressal for the facts in her case

John: If you compare 354 with 354A, you'll see how much the law has traveled and evolved since 1993

John: Ramani couldn't have invoked section 354 against Akbar back when the incident took place because the provision requires an overt act of criminal force, which did not take place

John: reads out the jurisprudential history of section 354 of the IPC

John: Finally, 15 years after the Vishakh guidelines, Parliament passed the POSH Act with the sole object of protecting women from sexual harassment at workplace

'sec 354A was also inserted in the IPC', John argues

John: There was an implicit recognition of #MeToo movement in the judgment of the SC