Self-righteousness and self-importance blurs the distinction between an “assertion” and “evidence”

Delhi High Court: In a recent fiasco a former Research and Analytical Wing (RAW) officer claimed that orders of a Bench of the Supreme Court by which her appeal against dismissal from service were dismissed, have lead to her sexual harassment. The Court dismissed the petition and held that the relief prayed had no basis on facts and was not founded on any principle of law. It was also observed that the petitioner has lost her understanding of differentiating between “assertion” and “evidence” since, she regarded public figures as barriers to her quest, which explains her self-righteousness and self-importance, eventually blurring the distinction between fantasy and reality.

Briefly stated the facts of the case were that petitioner, an Executive Cadre Class I Officer under RAW was compulsorily retired from service in 2009, under a service rule that the employer can retire a member of the service who ‘exposes’ herself. Aggrieved, the petitioner made representations to the National Human Rights Commission and National Commission for Women and Courts, claiming herself as a victim of conspiracy hatched by senior officers who were running a prostitution racket and pushing her into it. The Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the compulsory retirement order and ordered reinstatement, however, the Delhi High Court stayed the order of CAT. Thereafter, she filed an appeal and its review, both before the Supreme Court, which were dismissed. She also filed a writ petition which was dismissed as being baseless in (2010) 4 SCC 159.

Against the said orders she filed the present writ petition claiming that the said orders are frustrating the verdict of CAT which requires her to be reinstated in service. Not being reinstated in service would compel her to earn money by selling her body, thus, claiming that it is a case of sexual harassment by orders of Bench concerned, of the Supreme Court.

Holding that Courts are not meant for retribution, the Court held that the petition suggests that she has strong beliefs that her employer has wronged her, which have gradually acquired the shape of paranoia and delusion. Such behaviourly affected persons target all those who they think are wrong in not accepting their beliefs. The statements in the petition lacked the facts and evidence that should support her perceptions. Terming them as misconceptions the Court held that any attempt to confront her misconceptions would be a mistake because misconceptions being a product of intense suspicion and lengthy self-justification would further establish her position. Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Union of India, W.P.(CRL.)1889/2014, decided on 19-09-2014

To read the full judgment, refer SCCOnLine

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.