Nisha Priya Bhatia Vs. Union of India & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Writ Petition (Crl.) No(s). 60 of 2009
[Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India]
[Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India]
Petitioner: Nisha Priya Bhatia
Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Apeal: Writ Petition (Crl.) No(s). 60 of 2009
[Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India]
[Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India]
Judges: Harjit Singh Bedi & J.M. Panchal, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 15, 2010
Appearances:
Appearances
Mr. Nisha Priya Bhatia, Petitioner-in-person.
Mr. Nisha Priya Bhatia, Petitioner-in-person.
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Constitution of India, 1950
Article 32 – Writ Petition in Supreme Court – Allegations of sexual intimidation by senior colleague in office – Misuse of position and harassment alleged – Allegations already enquired by several independent bodies – No merit found – Even no relief granted by Human Rights Commission and National Commission for Women. Held that no relief can be granted under Article 32. Petition dismissed. (Paras 2-6)
Constitution of India, 1950
Article 32 – Writ Petition in Supreme Court – Allegations of sexual intimidation by senior colleague in office – Misuse of position and harassment alleged – Allegations already enquired by several independent bodies – No merit found – Even no relief granted by Human Rights Commission and National Commission for Women. Held that no relief can be granted under Article 32. Petition dismissed. (Paras 2-6)
JUDGEMENT:
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.
**************
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.
**************
