The Supreme Court bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and Mohan M Shantanagoudar on Monday (January 29) dismissed an appeal by a lawyer Seema Sapra, registered with the Bar council of Delhi in which she had filed a complaint under article 32 of the Constitution against Soli Sorabjee and Karanjawala for the sexual harassment.

The court decided that the case could not be heard because there were technical inadequacies. Sapra is a whistle-blower as well as an advocate and has submitted that nude photos of the lady advocate have been uploaded on the internet which is in violation of her fundamental right under the constitution. She has also claimed that a blog has been created on the web which also defames her.

The bench asked the appellant why she had come under Article 32 and not gone under Article 226 for violation of her Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The appellant said that she has not been heard on merits at the high court and therefore by the landmark judgment which says that when the high court under article 226 does not listen on merits, the petitioner has right to come under Article 32, she has done so.

However, the bench was not satisfied with the arguments presented and dismissed the writ petition and no notice was issued to the respondents.

The bench also directed that the appellant has the liberty to file a writ under Article 226 (Power of High Courts to issue certain writs). The court also asked registry to pay the court fee of the appellant as she is living hand to mouth.

—India Legal Bureau