IMPORTANT POINT
It is very odd that in a matter of an enquiry in respect of an allegation of sexual harassment, Union of India should claim privilege under Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12th November, 2009 passed by the Delhi High Court in Contempt Case (C) No. 449 of 2009. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court held that the respondents had not committed any violation of the order dated 12th November, 2008 passed in W.P. (C) No. 7971 of 2008.

3. In W.P. (C) No. 7971 of 2008 the appellant had made several prayers but during the course of hearing in the High Court, five of the prayers were not pressed with liberty to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. The sixth prayer which was pressed related to respondent No.2 (Ashok Chaturvedi). It was prayed that he should be asked to proceed on leave pending the independent enquiry into the appellant’s complaint of sexual harassment so that this respondent could not use his power and authority to influence any independent enquiry. As will be evident from the prayer, the enquiry relating to the allegation of sexual harassment made by the appellant was already pending. In the order dated 12th November, 2008 a direction was given by the High Court to expeditiously conclude the enquiry.

4. A few brief facts are necessary for a proper appreciation of the controversy before us.

5. The appellant had complained of sexual harassment by her senior Sunil Uke, Joint Secretary in the department and Ashok Chaturvedi. The allegation of sexual harassment by Sunil Uke was looked into by a Committee constituted for this purpose. The Committee gave its Report on 19th May, 2008.

6. A separate enquiry was held by a separate Committee into the allegation of sexual harassment by Ashok Chaturvedi. This Committee gave its Report on 23rd January, 2009.

7. In the Contempt Petition filed by the appellant in the Delhi High Court, it was brought out that the Committee inquiring into the allegation against Ashok Chaturvedi had since given its Report. It appears that pursuant to the Report an order dated 22nd September, 2009 was passed against the appellant but she disputed that this order was based on the Report. In any event, we are not concerned with the order dated 22nd September, 2009 except to say that it noted that the appellant’s disciplinary authority had considered both Reports and had approved the conclusion that there was not enough evidence to take action against Sunil Uke or Ashok Chaturvedi.

8. Be that as it may, the controversy that arose during the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court and in this Court related to the entitlement of the appellant to a copy of the Report dated 23rd January, 2009. The High Court did not pass any substantive order relating to furnishing that Report to the appellant.

9. At this stage, it may be noted that on 7th July, 2014 this Court recorded that Ashok Chaturvedi had since passed away.

10. With respect to furnishing the Report dated 23rd January, 2009 an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Union of India claiming privilege under Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act. We have been taken through the affidavit dated 22nd July, 2010 and all that the affidavit says is that disclosure of the contents of the Report would be against national interest and would compromise national security. Apparently, this is only because the appellant happens to belong to the highly sensitive organization which is entrusted with the delicate job of collecting and analyzing intelligence inputs necessary to maintain the unity, integrity and sovereignty of the country.

11. Both the Reports and the accompanying documents have been filed by the Union of India in a sealed cover in this Court.

12. We have gone through both the Reports and the accompanying documents and find absolutely nothing therein which could suggest that there is any threat to the integrity of the country or anything contained therein would be detrimental to the interests of the country. We had also specifically asked the learned Additional Solicitor General to tell us exact