NISHA PRIYA BHATIA Vs. AJIT SETH AND ORS.

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 4913 of 2016, Judgment Date: May 06, 2016

                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.4913 OF 2016
               (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) NO.1257 OF 2010)


Nisha Priya Bhatia                                           ….....Appellant

                                   versus

Ajit Seth & Ors.                                              …..Respondents

                               J U D G M E N T

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  exactly  what
portion of the Reports  and  the  documents  would  be  detrimental  to  the
interests of the country  but  nothing  could  be  pointed  out  during  the
hearing.
13.    We find it very odd that in a matter of an enquiry in respect  of  an
allegation of sexual harassment, the Union of India should  claim  privilege
under Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act.   The  contents  of  Reports
alleging sexual  harassment  can  hardly  relate  to  affairs  of  State  or
anything concerning national security.   In any  event,  absolutely  nothing
has been shown to us to warrant withholding the Reports  and  the  documents
from the appellant in relation to  the  enquiry  of  allegations  of  sexual
harassment made by the appellant against Sunil Uke and Ashok Chaturvedi.
14.    The Report relating to allegations of sexual harassment made  by  the
appellant against Sunil Uke is not the subject  matter  of  any  dispute  of
controversy before us. However, since that Report has  also  been  filed  in
this Court in a sealed cover, we did go through it and find nothing  in  the
Report that would require it to  be  withheld  from  the  appellant  on  any
ground whatsoever.
15.    We accordingly dispose of this appeal by holding that  the  appellant
is entitled to the Reports in respect of the  allegations  made  by  her  of
sexual harassment by Sunil Uke and Ashok Chaturvedi and  that  none  of  the
respondents have  committed  any  contempt  of  court.  In  any  case  Ashok
Chaturvedi has since passed away.
16.    While going through the Report dated 19th May, 2008 we found that  by
mistake one or two pages of  the  deposition  marked  as  Annexure  Q-2  and
Annexure Q-5 of the witnesses  were  not  photocopied.   Similarly,  the  CD
containing the deposition of 6 officers/staff on 22nd April,  2008  has  not
been filed nor has the CD containing the deposition of Sunil Uke been  filed
in the sealed cover, perhaps to prevent damage to the CD.
17.    We direct the Court Master to handover to the  appellant  the  Report
and documents pertaining to the enquiry in relation to the allegations  made
by the appellant against Sunil Uke and against Ashok  Chaturvedi  and  which
have been filed in this Court in a sealed cover.
18.    We direct the Union of India to supply to the appellant  the  missing
pages of the deposition marked as Annexure  Q-2  and  Annexure  Q-5  of  the
witnesses as well as the CD containing the deposition of six  officers/staff
recorded on 22nd April, 2008 and the CD containing the deposition  of  Sunil
Uke.  The needful be done within one week from today.
19.    With the above directions the appeal is disposed of.

                                                              ……………………………..J
                                                           ( Madan B. Lokur)



New Delhi;                                                     .……………………………J
May 6, 2016                                                  ( N.V. Ramana )