The Supreme Court ruled that while a sexual harassment complaint against a university V-C was time-barred, it must remain in his resume to “haunt” him forever. The Bench said, “It is advisable to forgive the wrongdoer, but not to forget the wrongdoing.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has delivered a strong observation while dealing with a case of alleged sexual harassment against a vice-chancellor of a university in West Bengal. The top court said that while the law may not allow the complaint to be heard because it was filed late, the wrongdoing itself should not be forgotten.
The judges also ordered that the record of the alleged sexual harassment must become a permanent part of the vice-chancellor’s resume so that it continues to follow him throughout his career.
ALSO READ: MP High Court Halts Live Streaming of Criminal Case Hearings from September 15
The case was heard by a Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale on Friday, September 12, 2025. The matter came before the Supreme Court after a faculty member of the university had filed a complaint in December 2023, alleging sexual harassment by the vice-chancellor.
The court noted that the Calcutta High Court’s division bench had not made any mistake in law when it restored the decision of the Local Complaint Committee (LCC). The LCC had earlier ruled that the complaint was time-barred and therefore could not be considered.
The Supreme Court remarked:
“It is advisable to forgive the wrongdoer, but not to forget the wrongdoing. The wrong which has been committed against the appellant [faculty member] may not be investigated on technical grounds, but it must not be forgotten.”
The Bench further directed:
“In this view of the matter, we direct that the incidents of alleged sexual harassment on part of respondent no.1 (V-C) may be forgiven but allowed to haunt the wrongdoer forever. Thus, it is directed that this judgment shall be made part of the resume of respondent no.1, compliance of which shall be strictly ensured by him personally.”
The court explained that the complaint was indeed filed beyond the time limit. The rules under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act prescribe a limitation period of three months, which can be extended up to six months in certain cases.
The complaint in this matter was filed on December 26, 2023, even though the last alleged incident had taken place in April 2023. This made the complaint both beyond the original limitation period and the extended period allowed under law.
When the LCC rejected the complaint as time-barred, the faculty member approached the Calcutta High Court. In May 2024, a single judge of the High Court quashed the LCC’s order and directed the committee to hear the case on merits.
However, this was later challenged before a division bench of the High Court, which in December 2024 allowed the appeal and held that the complaint was indeed time-barred.
The division bench of the High Court also observed that the administrative actions taken against the faculty member after April 2023 were not the personal acts of the vice-chancellor but collective decisions of the university’s executive council.
The council included academicians, jurists and even judges of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the contents of the complaint in detail. It noted that the complaint alleged that the vice-chancellor had first called the complainant to his office in September 2019 and insisted she should go out for dinner with him, saying that doing so “would greatly benefit her personally.”
The complaint further stated that she had made it clear she was uncomfortable and wanted to maintain only a professional relationship.
According to the complaint, the vice-chancellor then
“demanded sexual favour from her and threatened her if the offers are declined.”
The Bench observed:
“A plain reading of the entire complaint would reveal that the sexual harassment, if any, of the appellant at the hands of respondent no.1 (V-C) commenced sometime in September 2019, and the last incident in that connection took place in April 2023.”
On this basis, the court held:
“The complaint of appellant from the last incident of sexual harassment of April 2023 was certainly beyond time.”
It further clarified that the subsequent incident, where the complainant was removed from a post in August 2023, could not be treated as an act of sexual harassment.
The Bench said.
“The actions taken against the appellant in August 2023, are administrative in nature and does not create a gender based hostile environment, and hence, fall short of being actions amounting to acts of sexual harassment,”
Thus, while upholding the High Court’s decision that the complaint was barred by limitation, the Supreme Court made a significant direction that the record of the sexual harassment allegations should remain permanently attached to the resume of the vice-chancellor.
This ensures that while the law might not permit punishment in this case due to procedural rules, the wrong will not be forgotten and will remain part of the wrongdoer’s record forever.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Sexual Harassment
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
