Media covering MJ Akbar case asked not to make ‘personal remarks’ about lawyers
In a surprising development, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vishal Pahuja, who is hearing the defamation case filed by MJ Akbar against his former colleague Priya Ramani, asked the media not to publish “personal remarks” about the lawyers who are appearing for the former minister. This comes after a report in The Wire spoke about how MJ Akbar's lawyers were laughing during journalist Ghazala Wahab’s deposition in court on Tuesday. Ghazala is one of the over 20 women who accused MJ Akbar of sexual harassment and is one of the defence witnesses testifying against MJ Akbar.
According to reports as well as journalists present during the hearing, MJ Akbar’s lawyer Geeta Luthra and her team of lawyers were heard laughing and talking among themselves while Ghazala was recounting the ordeal that she had to go through while she was working as a journalist under MJ Akbar as her boss.
According to a LiveLaw report, before Wednesday’s proceedings began, Akbar’s lawyer approached the judge in his chambers and voiced her objection to what she termed was a personal remark made against her in The Wire piece. The judge then came into the courtroom and asked journalists who are covering the case to refrain from making any personal remarks about the counsels. He then also stated that the journalist who had done so, though he did not name anyone at the time, should stay back after the hearing, issue a clarification and redact the part of the article that is being objected to.
Later, The Wire’s Anoo Bhuyan was summoned to the judge’s chamber. Anoo, who was accompanied by other journalists, was personally asked to refrain from making any personal remarks about the lawyers. When Anoo sought more details on what qualifies as a personal remark, the judge said that he wants that the decorum of the court to be maintained.
Anoo then asked, “Isn't the act of laughing when a witness is giving her statements also amount to the violation of court's decorum?” However, the court did not give a response and it is not sure what qualifies as a ‘personal remark.’
This thread.
— Namit Saxena (@namitsaxena2007) December 11, 2019
Court cannot goad a journalist what to report. A journalist has a right to report the proceedings in an impartial and independent manner. Court cannot control one's pen.
This judge made theory of 'personal remarks' has no place in law. @AnooBhu https://t.co/d52EoiPmi8
Laughing in court doesn't violate decorum
— JoiningUnrelatedDots (@Mareeswj) December 11, 2019
Reporting about laughing violates decorum !?@imranhindu @OmairTAhmad @prempanicker https://t.co/K6ULT0IiE5
3. As an illustration, A personal remark would be: “Geeta Luthra is an incompetent/rude/nasty lawyer/person” That her team including her daughter was laughing in the *middle* of traumatic testimony is bland facts.
— Dushyant (@atti_cus) December 11, 2019
So it seems you can't comment that lawyers laugh through legal proceedings. https://t.co/qRQZ5hxewK
— Salil Tripathi سلیل تریپاٹھی સલિલ ત્રિપાઠી (@saliltripathi) December 11, 2019
Lawyers and judges would prefer if court reporters can only use the dry text of court orders. Many would prefer if reporters weren't even inside the court.
— Rohan Venkat (@RohanV) December 11, 2019
But the actual setting and events are crucial, with details that rarely make it to orders. https://t.co/SqIrb4f0kA
The hearing in the defamation case continued on Wednesday with Akbar’s lawyer cross-examining Ghazala.