SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 70

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARJIT SINGH BEDI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL
Ms. Nisha Priya Bhatia
Versus
Union Of India & Others
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 60 OF 2009
Decided on : 15-01-2010

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner-in-person: Nisha Priya Bhatia.

Headnote:A) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.32:- The petitioner herein had alleged that she was sexually harassed by her senior officers and on her attempts to highlight their misconduct. But her allegations were found to be of no substance in the enquiries conducted by independent bodies. Hence she was not granted the relief sought under the writ petition. However liberty had been given to the petitioner to pursue some of the matters pending before the High Court.

       

       

Judgment :

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

1. We had heard the petitioner-in-person at length. Although this is a miscellaneous matter and at the stage of fresh hearing, we had reserved judgment for the reason that the petitioner was surcharged and appeared to be emotionally disturbed and prudence dictated that we should not make any order adverse to her in her presence.

2. During the course of arguments, the petitioner repeatedly referred to the fact that she had been sexually intimidated by her senior colleagues in office and that they had misused their positions and amassed huge fortunes. She also emphasized that it was on account of her attempts to highlight the misconduct of these officers that she had been harassed & hounded time and again and had even been denied her service dues.

3. We have gone through the petition as also the documents filed and find that the allegations made by the petitioner have been enquired into by several independent bodies including a Committee headed by Dr. Renuka Vishwanathan and supervised by the Cabinet Secretary and that no merit had been found in the allegations levelled by her.

4. The record further shows that the allegations made by the petitioner have at one time or the other been examined by the National Human Rights Commission and the National Commission for Women and they too had not granted her any relief.

5. We also see from paragraph No.18 of the petition that some over-lapping matters are pending before the Delhi High Court. For all these reasons, we are unable to grant any relief to the petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. She may however pursue her remedies before the Delhi High Court or elsewhere.

6. The Writ Petition is dismissed for the above reasons.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top