In Brief
Nisha Priya Bhatia, an intelligence officer, challenged her compulsory retirement under Rule 135 of the RAW Rules, 1975 on purported "security grounds" following media exposure of her sexual harassment complaint. The Supreme Court held that sexual harassment does not constitute a valid security threat justifying compulsory retirement, and that the word "may" in Rule 135 regarding pension benefits must be read as "shall", making such benefits mandatory. The Court found fundamental rights violations due to insensitive and improper handling of her harassment complaint, awarding constitutional compensation. However, the Court upheld that criminal sanction requirements under CrPC remained valid and the order refusing sanction against officials could not be challenged collaterally.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.