Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Ajit Seth & Ors.
Background
The appellant, an officer in a sensitive intelligence organisation, had complained of sexual harassment against two colleagues, Sunil Uke and Ashok Chaturvedi. Separate departmental inquiry committees examined the two complaints and submitted reports (dated 19 May 2008 and 23 January 2009 respectively), but the Delhi High Court had earlier held, in contempt proceedings, that the authorities had not violated its direction to expeditiously complete and furnish these inquiries. The core dispute before the Supreme Court was the appellant's entitlement to copies of these inquiry reports, which the Union of India resisted on a claim of privilege under Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act, citing national security.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court examined both reports and accompanying documents (filed in a sealed cover) itself and found nothing that could remotely threaten national security or integrity, noting that the Additional Solicitor General could not point to any sensitive portion either. The Court held it was "very odd" for the government to invoke a national-security privilege over reports concerning allegations of sexual harassment. It therefore disposed of the appeal by holding that the appellant was entitled to both reports, that none of the respondents had committed contempt, and separately directed the Court Master to hand over the sealed reports to the appellant and the Union of India to supply certain missing pages and CDs of witness depositions within one week. The Court also noted that respondent Ashok Chaturvedi had since passed away during the pendency of the case.
Lesson Learnt
A government claim of "privilege" or "national security" over documents cannot be accepted at face value, especially in sensitive personal matters like sexual harassment inquiries: courts can and will look behind such claims themselves, and a complainant generally has a right to see the findings of an inquiry into her own complaint.