A Bench comprising Justices Harish Tandon and Prasenjit Biswas supported the decision made by the Local Complaints Committee (LCC) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
Calcutta: The Calcutta High Court has upheld the dismissal of a sexual harassment complaint filed against Dr. Nirmal Kanti Chakraborti, Vice Chancellor of the National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS), Kolkata.
A Bench comprising Justices Harish Tandon and Prasenjit Biswas supported the decision made by the Local Complaints Committee (LCC) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
The LCC dismissed the complaint, citing the limitation period, as the complaint was lodged in December 2023, while the alleged incident occurred in March 2023. The Court clarified that even if the limitation period was overlooked, the complainant’s allegations of retaliation from the University’s Executive Committee did not qualify as sexual harassment under the POSH Act.
The Court noted that the actions described by the complainant were not related to sexual harassment as defined in Section 2(n) of the POSH Act. The Court highlighted that decisions by the Executive Council, a collective body composed of eminent academics, jurists, and judges, were unlikely to have been manipulated by Chakraborti alone, even if he was a part of it.
The complainant, who had been a teaching assistant at NUJS since 2003, alleged that after Chakraborti became VC in 2019, he repeatedly called her to his office under the pretext of offering career advice, suggesting they develop a “personal relationship.”
Following her refusal, she claimed her promotion was delayed, and only in 2022 did the Executive Committee approve her promotion. She also alleged that Chakraborti invited her on a trip, and after her refusal, threatened her career.
After filing her complaint in December 2023, the complainant requested a delay waiver in 2024, which the LCC rejected, citing the timeframe of the alleged events from 2019 to 2023. She then appealed to the High Court, and a single-judge bench set aside the LCC’s decision, directing a re-evaluation of the complaint. In response, Chakraborti filed an appeal before the Division Bench, challenging the single-judge’s order.
Chakraborti’s counsel emphasized the issue of delay and limitation, also pointing out that the decision regarding the complainant’s promotion had been made by the Executive Committee, not solely by Chakraborti. They further argued that the complainant’s complaint was made in response to 2023 proceedings concerning alleged misappropriation of funds under her control.
The Division Bench agreed with Chakraborti’s arguments, setting aside the single-judge order and effectively upholding the LCC’s dismissal of the sexual harassment complaint.
Earlier, Calcutta High Court directed a committee to re-evaluate a sexual harassment complaint filed by an Associate Professor at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (WBNUJS) in Kolkata against the University’s Vice-Chancellor.
The local committee for the 24-Parganas (North) district, constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), earlier rejected the complaint on the grounds of limitation.
Justice Kausik Chanda of the Calcutta High Court instructed the committee to conclude the proceedings on merit, in accordance with the POSH Act.
The Court remarked,
“The matter of limitation involves a combination of legal principles and factual considerations. Hence, determining the limitation issue solely based on the complaint’s content without evidence is improper at the initial stage by the local committee. The committee should acknowledge the allegations presented in the complaint as stated, without assessing their accuracy prematurely,”
In the complaint, the faculty member argued that the Vice-Chancellor interfered with her job, creating a hostile and unpleasant work environment for her. She also claimed that she had been subjected to degrading treatment, which jeopardized her health and safety.
The faculty member approached the local committee with her complaint in December 2023 and also submitted an application for condonation of delay in 2024. However, the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) denied the application for condonation of delay because the alleged harassment occurred between 2019 and 2023.
The committee stated on March 5 of this year ,the complaint was time-barred, leading the petitioner to approach the High Court.
The court initially believed that the committee should have analyzed whether the petitioner’s complaint time-barred according to Section 9 of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act. The court observed that the committee, in concluding that the complaint, barred by limitation, failed to consider the incidents that allegedly occurred between April and December 2023 as constituting sexual harassment.
The Court observed,
“In this instance, the accusations outlined in the complaint indicate a connection between the reported victimization and adverse treatment purportedly occurring from April 2023 to December 2023, with the alleged sexual harassment of the petitioner spanning from September 2019 to April 2023. Consequently, considering the complaint as a whole, it would imply that it falls within the limitation period as per Section 9(1) of the Act of 2013,”
Therefore, the committee instructed to review the petitioner’s complaint once more and make a decision based on its merits.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
