NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Tuesday summoned journalist

after it found her remarks alleging sexual harassment by BJP leader M J

were prima facie defamatory.

“Reputation is not only the salt of life but also the purest treasure and the most precious perfume of life,” the court of additional chief metropolitan magistrate (ACCM)

Vishal remarked while summoning Ramani to appear on February 25 on a defamation complaint filed by Akbar.

The ACMM added that a person’s reputation was an extremely “delicate and cherished” value this side of the grave. “It is a revenue generator for the present as well as for prosperity. The right to enjoyment of a private reputation, unassailed by malicious assault on it, is of ancient origin and is necessary to human society. A man’s reputation is his property, more valuable than other property,” he said.

ACMM Vishal said as it was a prima facie case, Akbar was an “aggrieved person” and the defamatory statements had been published, widely read, and particularly by the witnesses examined who deposed that the reputation of the complainant was “lowered in their estimation”.

Akbar has arraigned journalist Ramani as accused for her 2017 article, and tweets in 2018 which he first learnt about on his return from Africa. Ramani’s tweet, he said, had a link to an article in

magazine, which was first published in October 2017. Akbar has already referred to his resignation as a step to seek justice in his “personal capacity”. “I chose in that environment to seek justice in my personal capacity without the

of office. This is why I offered resignation as minister,” he had said earlier.

Senior counsel Geeta Luthra, Akbar’s advocate, argued that Ramani’s Vogue article and the subsequent tweets were defamatory on the face of it. She added that Ramani had herself said that she didn't name Akbar earlier as he had not done anything to her.

In order to summon Ramani, the court had to see that a prima facie case was made out as opposed to the standard proof of “beyond reasonable doubt” required for conviction. The court, therefore, had to see if sufficient grounds to summon her existed. In a “normal” scenario, ACMM Vishal said, the allegations “without a doubt” were defamatory for his reputation had been lowered in the eyes of witnesses deposing in his favour. “The situation may be different if the respondent is able to make out a defence for her,” ACCM Vishal added.

But her side of the story could only be pleaded and proved by a person who is charged with defamation. As the case was still at a nascent stage, the court had to look at the complaint and evidence given by his witnesses.

An essential prerequisite, it said, was the lowering of reputation in the estimation of others — a fact proved by his witnesses, namely JoyeetaBasu, Sunil Gujral, Veenu Sandal, Tapan Chaki and Rachna Grover. These witnesses had either worked, or been associated with, him in his long tenure as a journalist.

Noting the various facets of the complaint, ACMM Vishal observed that a person could not be defamed in his own eyes. “A man’s reputation is the estimate in which others hold him, not the good opinion which he has of himself. There have to be other reasonable, prudent and right thinking members of society who say that the reputation of a person aggrieved is lowered in their estimation,” he said.