Page 1

  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  C.A.4913/2016 (@ SLP (C) No.1257/2010)                                           Page 1 of 6                                                 

Page 2

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 23 rd  

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  

C.A.4913/2016 (@ SLP (C) No.1257/2010)                                           Page 2 of 6                                                 

Page 3

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  

C.A.4913/2016 (@ SLP (C) No.1257/2010)                                           Page 3 of 6                                                 

Page 4

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  

C.A.4913/2016 (@ SLP (C) No.1257/2010)                                           Page 4 of 6                                                 

Page 5

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  

C.A.4913/2016 (@ SLP (C) No.1257/2010)                                           Page 5 of 6                                                 

Page 6

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 )

C.A.4913/2016 (@ SLP (C) No.1257/2010)                                           Page 6 of 6