The Supreme Court dismissed an NUJS faculty member’s sexual harassment complaint against VC Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti on limitation grounds but ruled the allegations must remain in his professional record. Judges said, “It is advisable to forgive the wrongdoer, but not to forget the wrongdoing.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Friday dismissed a sexual harassment complaint filed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) by a faculty member of the National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS) against the Vice-Chancellor (VC) of the law school, Prof. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti.
The Court said that the case was filed beyond the time limit given under the law. However, the Court made a strong observation that the allegations cannot be forgotten and must remain recorded in the professional record of the Vice-Chancellor.
ALSO READ: Delhi Court Fines Man Rs 60,000 for Defaming Retired Army Colonel on WhatsApp Group
A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and PB Varale noted that the complaint was filed with the Local Complaints Committee (LCC) in December 2023, while the last alleged act of sexual harassment took place in April 2023. Since the law allows a maximum of six months to file a complaint, the Court said that the case was “barred by time.”
The Court however added that the wrongdoing must not be erased from memory.
The judges observed:
“It is advisable to forgive the wrongdoer, but not to forget the wrongdoing. The wrong which has been committed against the appellant may not be investigated on technical grounds, but it must not be forgotten.”
The complaint was made by a professor of NUJS who alleged that since 2019 the Vice-Chancellor had made repeated advances towards her. These included invitations for dinner, inappropriate physical contact, and threats when she refused.
She said her promotion was delayed in 2019, though it was finally approved in 2022. The last direct act of sexual harassment, according to her, happened in April 2023 when she was asked to accompany the VC to a resort. When she declined, she alleged he warned that her career would “suffer badly.”
Later in August 2023, the professor was removed as Director of a research centre in the university, and the Executive Council also initiated an inquiry into her handling of project funds.
In December 2023, she filed a complaint before the Local Complaints Committee (LCC). The LCC dismissed it as time-barred, noting that it was filed beyond the maximum limitation period under the POSH Act.
She then approached the Calcutta High Court. In May 2024, a single-judge Bench allowed her plea and directed the LCC to hear her complaint afresh, saying that the harassment had created a continuing hostile work environment. But in December 2024, a Division Bench of the High Court reversed this order.
It said that the actions taken after April 2023 — like her removal as Director and the inquiry into project funds — were decisions of the university’s Executive Council and not personal acts of the VC. The Division Bench clarified that these were administrative decisions and did not amount to sexual harassment.
The professor then appealed to the Supreme Court. The apex court looked closely at the allegations. It found that the first alleged act of sexual harassment happened in September 2019, when the VC allegedly called her to his office, touched her hand, and pressed her to join him for dinner.
The final alleged act was in April 2023, when he allegedly asked her to go with him to a resort.
The Court ruled that the subsequent events of August 2023 — her removal and the financial inquiry — could not be linked to the April 2023 incident. These were actions taken by other university bodies and could not be treated as acts of sexual harassment under the POSH Act.
The Bench observed:
“There has to be a direct link between the action complained of and an overt act of sexual harassment. In view of what has been said above, we find no such direct link between the last incident of sexual harassment which happened in April 2023, and those referred to subsequently in August 2023 or December 2023.”
The professor’s lawyers argued that the case amounted to a “continuing wrong,” but the Court rejected this argument. It said the April 2023 incident was complete in itself, and later administrative measures could not extend the limitation period.
The judges explained:
“The subsequent events have no connection to the earlier act of sexual misconduct and as such, fall clearly out of the purview of acts or behaviours amounting to sexual harassment. In this way, the incident of April 2023 remains the last event related to sexual harassment.”
Although the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, it made an extraordinary direction for ensuring accountability.
The judges ordered:
“It is directed that this judgment shall be made part of the resume of respondent no.1 (the Vice Chancellor), compliance of which shall be strictly ensured by him personally.”
Thus, the Court closed the case by saying that while limitation laws prevented any further investigation, the allegations will remain permanently attached to the Vice-Chancellor’s record.
The appellant was represented by Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora and advocate Rishad Ahmed Chowdhury.
The respondents were represented by Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan along with advocates Satya Ranjan Swain, Vishnu Kant, Ankush Kapoor, Kautilya Birat, Aandrita Deb, Rajnandini, Vishwadeep Chandrakar, Aayush Gupta, Kunal Chatterji, Maitrayee Banerjee, Varij Nayan Mishra, CK Rai, Vinay Kumar Gupta, and Sumit Panwar.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on POSH
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
