#MeToo: Special court to continue hearing defamation case filed against Priya Ramani by M J Akbar

NEW DELHI: Principal district and sessions court on Thursday held that the special court meant for MPs and MLAs would continue hearing the criminal defamation suit filed by former union minister M J Akbar against journalist Priya Ramani.
District and sessions judge Sujata Kohli decided that it will be the court of additional chief metropolitan magistrate Vishal Pahuja that will continue hearing the case.The hearing was at the final stage of arguments, having continued for the past two years, when the court sent the issue to the principal judge for adjudication.
The magisterial court, deignated to hear cases pertaining to MPs and MLAs, had said that the case filed by Akbar against Ramani was not a matter "filed against an MP or MLA" and therefore it could be heard by a court of "competent jurisdiction".
Senior advocate Geeta Luthra, appearing for Akbar, had informed Judge Kohli that the hearing had gone on for two years and she was at the final stage of rebutting the defendant’s reply when the judge Pahuja said that his court was for MP and MLA.
“But there is no bar. The court has heard the argument-in-chief, my friend’s (Ramani’s counsel) reply and only rebuttal is remaining,” she submitted.
Ramani’s counsel Bhavook Chauhan, had said, “Yes, rearguing would be troublesome but the notification has clearly stated that the special court was solely for MP/MLAs. I leave it to your honour,” he said.
Luthra then pointed out that it didn’t mean that cases filed by MPs and MLAs couldn’t be heard by the court. “I don’t see any difficulty. I could just go back to that court and finish,” she added.
Judge Kohli noted that the notification nowhere created a bar that other cases couldn’t be heard and the object of the notification was to hear the cases against MPs and MLAs expeditiously. “But there is also the point that the notification was passed in 2018, and this case was filed in 2018. None of the officers took note? None of the lawyers? Supposing we say without jurisdiction… consequences can be very dangerous. If the court was hearing it without jurisdiction the whole trial goes,” she had said.