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

John: arguments made by the complainant are farcical and deserves to be thrown out

'Sourcing happens in the realm of academia, not in journalism', John argues

John points out that Ramani was not the first person to tweet about Akbar

'She had seen the tweets of Ghazala Wahab, Shonali Khullar Shroff, Prerna Bhindra, etc.' John argues

John: If they're claiming that Ramani invented this incident and it is a figment of her imagination, what stopped her from inventing the statements made in the rest of article?

'Ramani has not wasted court's time by denying the authorship of the article', John argues

John again reads out the Vogue article to point out that the body of the article refers to multiple male bosses

'She doesn't have to source the statements made in the article to anyone, she had already put it in inverted commas, this is not a PhD paper', John argues

John points out that Ramani is not only referring to multiple male bosses, but also to multiple women

'Can there be any basis for the allegation that the complainant is making', John argues

John argues that the court has to look at the structure of the Vogue article to decide the veracity of Ramani's statement

 John argues that the headline of her article 'Harvey Weinsteins of the world' is in the plural. That means she was referring to multiple male bosses 

John argues that Ramani had denied Akbar's offers regarding having a drink and playing music

Ramani has exhibited the text she had received from Nilofar just moments after posting her tweet in 2018 to corroborate her statement

'She had no knowledge that she will be prosecuted for defamation', John argues

John: Ramani was just 23 years old, it was her first job interview.

 John argues that Ramani has given a detailed testimony of what happened to her when she went to Oberoi for her interview

'She was silent, uncomfortable, due to her young age didn't know how to turn down Akbar's overtures', John argues

John: Ramani's in an eminent journalist, her work is a testimony of her own eminence

'She had made a detailed account on oath about what happened to her in 1993', John argues

John takes court's permission to deconstruct Ramani's entire statement and highlight some important issues

John continues to read the statements made by Ramani during her cross-examination

Ramani had denied all the suggestions put to her by complainant's counsel

John now reads out the statements of Ramani made during her cross-examination