MS N v. Union of India & Ors.

1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applications stand disposed of. W.P.(C) 6923/2026 and CM APPL. 33917/2026

1. The petitioner vide the instant petition seeks to challenge the report of the Internal Complaint Committee („ICC‟) dated 06.10.2025. The dispute emanates from the complaint made by the petitioner on 17.04.2025.

KUMAR KAURAV

2. The petitioner was working with an entity situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The inquiry was conducted outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and the report, which is sought to be submitted, had also been presented outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

3. The location of one of the offices of the respondent, or the office of the Union of India having been situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, will not be the sole factor to determine the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The petitioner submits that the first act of sexual harassment by respondent no.5 had taken place during 2016 and 2023, which continued thereafter, when she was re-hired in November 2024. She further submits that the cause of action crystallized on 17.04.2025, when she had filed her complaint before the ICC. However, the aforementioned incidents that form the cause of action seem to have taken place in Gurugram, at the office of respondent no.2. The investigation leading to the inquiry report, which is sought to be quashed, had also taken place in Gurugram. Therefore, not a single incident had taken place in Delhi, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

5. This Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi,[1] took note of the decisions in Shristi Udaipur Hotels v. Housing and Urban Development Corp.,[2] Riddhima Singh v. Central Board of Secondary Education,[3] Smt. Manjira Devi Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital v. 2026:DHC:1605.

Uttarakhand University of Ayurveda and Ors.,[4] Michael Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. National Medical Commission and Ors.,[5] which declare that the situs of the head office/registered office of the respondent, does not determine whether the Court has the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition.

6. The Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. importantly noted, at para. 36:

7. In the facts of the instant case, there may be a part of cause of action which has arisen in Delhi, however, the same should not be the sole reason to entertain the instant petition.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.,[6] has held that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine 2024:DHC:6903-DB 2024:DHC:7146.

30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. [See Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney [AIR 1941 Cal 670: ILR (1941) 1 Cal 490], Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal [(1945) 49 CWN 357: AIR 1949 Cal 495], Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage (P) Ltd. [1997 CWN 122], S.S. Jain & Co. v. Union of India [(1994) 1 CHN 445] and New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India [AIR 1994 Del 126].]”

9. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition on the ground of territoriality.