J vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~100 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11219/2021 J1 .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with Mr. Madhav Bajaj and Ms. Katyayani Joshi, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 20.08.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. On 19 May 2017, the petitioner, who was a wrestler, made a complaint before the respondent against her coach, Mahavir Prasad, alleging sexual harassment. Following the said complaint, the respondent constituted an Internal Complaints Committee2 in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishakha v State of Rajasthan3, under the chairpersonship of one Ms. Nidhi Singh, to look into the complaint. 2. The first ICC arrived at a finding that the complaint was false. 1 Anonymized in view of Section 16 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 2 “the first ICC” hereinafter 3 (1997) 6 SCC 241 W.P.(C) 11219/2021 Signature Not Verified Page 1 of 7 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:21.08.2025 19:00:41 Based thereon, the petitioner was visited with a charge sheet dated 21 September 2017 proposing to impose penalty on her for having levelled false allegations against Mahavir Prasad. That charge sheet came to be withdrawn on 12 March 2020. 3. In the interregnum, on 20 April 2018, a second ICC was constituted by the respondent to re-examine the petitioner’s complaint, under the chairpersonship, this time, of one Ms. Navneet Kaur. Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was never informed of the constitution of the second ICC, and was never involved in the proceedings of the second ICC. It is necessary, in this context, to