Delhi High Court
Nisha Priya Bhatia vs Union Of India on 19 September, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL.)1889/2014
NISHA PRIYA BHATIA .....Petitioner
Represented by: Petitioner in person
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Sanjay Jain, ASG instructed by
Mr.Kirtiman Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
ORDER
% 19.09.2014
Crl.M.A.Nos.14641-42/2014
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(Crl.) No.1889/2014
1. The petitioner was a member of the 1987 Batch of Executive Cadre
Class I Officers under the Research and Analytical Wing until the year
2009, when she was compulsorily retired from service under a service
rule which empowered the employer to retire from service a member of
the service who 'exposes' herself.
2. As per the petitioner she was the victim of a conspiracy hatched
against her by senior officers who were running a prostitution racket and
were pushing her into the same. The petitioner has named a few officers
in the annexures filed with the writ petition, which are the representations
made by her to various authorities; and pleadings in Courts.
3. Concerning the relief prayed for in the writ petition, grievances of
the petitioner concerns the orders passed by a Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in two Petitions seeking Special Leave to Appeal, a
Review Petition and a Writ Petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, which were dismissed by the same Bench.
4. The petitioner claims that as a result of the orders passed by the
Bench of the Supreme Court, the favourable verdict which she has
obtained from the Central Administrative Tribunal, requiring her to be
reinstated in service are being frustrated and the effect thereof, as claimed
by her, is that she would be compelled, due to paucity of money, to earn
money by selling her body.
5. She thus pleads that it is a case of sexual harassment by the
concerned Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner has
annexed various representations made by her to all and sundry. She also
ropes in as conspirators a former Additional Solicitor General of India
and a respected senior lady lawyer practising in the Supreme Court.
6. A perusal of the petition and the annexures would evince a strong
belief held by the petitioner that her employer has wronged her; and it is a
trait of such persons, who strongly believe that they are wronged by
others, to target all those whom they think are wrong in not accepting
what they say. The pleadings in the writ petition are a reflection of the
petitioners feeling of being persecuted. In the absence of any facts which
support such perceptions, the statements in the petition and the
representations are a highly developed and organized set of beliefs, which
lack any basis in fact and are without any objective evidence or rational
argument. With passage of time the tenor of the representations to
various authorities and pleadings in various proceedings filed by the
petitioner have moved from persistence and have entered the zone of
insolence. Four phrases which such behaviourly affected persons are
used : (a) You are biased : this accusation is against the Judge, and we
find a liberal sprinkling of this in the complaints lodged by the petitioner
complaining that Judges are not paying any heed to her. (b) I have a right
to justice. By this the petitioner means : 'I have a right to get my way'.
(c) What about my human rights? This appeal is not specific to any
instance or a fact. It is used more in the nature of a catch-all phrase to
convey a message to the Judge : 'Surely there is a principle of law that
can help me and you better find it for me'; and (d) 'Conspiracy' and
'Corruption' referring to the Court the favourite words used include the
two.
7. The difference between 'assertion' and 'evidence' is lost. Given
the petitioner's fixation to her beliefs she evinces the trait of increasingly
turning to making a grandiose list of complaints and accompanying
insults. The anger and contempt has turned into paranoia and delusions.
As time has passed the petitioner has become rigid and suspicious. We
find that the pattern of behaviour : pursuit of her personal grievances has
seriously damaged the petitioner. Her grievances have steadily grown
from the mundane to the grandiose, revealing grand fantasies of her
ultimate vindication, unveiled dramatically before Courts.
8. The pleadings and communications addressed by the petitioner
bring out a trait of a category of litigants, who in their pursuit, send
voluminous communications, and one finds that her requests have
gradually shifts to demands and therefrom to recrimination and finally to
threats. She has come to regard public figures as the central impediments
to her quest and this explains self-righteousness and self-importance
blurring the distinction between a fantasy and the real and thus the non-
understanding of a difference between an 'assertion' and 'evidence'.
9. Any attempt by us to directly confront this misconception would be
a mistake because the misconceptions are a product of intense suspicion
and lengthy self-justification, and would further entrench her position if
any attempt is made to confront her misconceptions. Courts are not
meant for retribution.
10. The relief prayed has no basis on facts and needless to state is
founded on no principle of law.
11. The writ petition is dismissed.
12. No costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2014
mamta
