[Non-Reportable] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 60 OF 2009

MS. NISHA PRIYA BHATIA           ….PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.           … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T  

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.

WP (Crl.) No.60/2009

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.  

..............................J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

…………………………J. (J.M. PANCHAL)

NEW DELHI,  JANUARY  15, 2010.

2