The Supreme Court has ruled that sexual harassment complaints under the POSH Act must be filed within six months of the last incident, while directing that the Vice Chancellor’s misconduct be permanently recorded in his resume as a moral consequence.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has delivered a ruling on the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), reaffirming that complaints of sexual harassment must be filed within a maximum of six months from the date of the last incident.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale observed that while limitation issues generally involve mixed questions of fact and law, if a complaint is “patently barred by limitation on the face of it, it may be rejected at the threshold, without calling the opposite party.”
Background of the Case
The ruling came in an appeal filed by a faculty member of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata, against Vice Chancellor Dr. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti. The faculty member had challenged the rejection of her complaint by the Local Complaints Committee (LCC), which had dismissed it as time-barred.
The alleged sexual harassment began in September 2019, with the last incident occurring in April 2023. However, the complaint was filed only on December 26, 2023—nearly eight months later. This was beyond the three-month statutory period as well as the extendable six-month period prescribed under the Act.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Moves to Include Women Lawyers Under PoSH Act, Seeks BCI Response
Court’s Findings
The appellant argued that she continued to face detrimental treatment and an intimidating work environment even after April 2023, pointing to her removal from the post of Director of the Centre for Financial, Regulatory and Governance Studies in August 2023. She claimed these events constituted “continuing harassment” under Section 3(2) of the POSH Act.
The Court, however, disagreed, holding that subsequent administrative actions were independent and not linked to the earlier incidents of sexual harassment. It clarified:
“The administrative measures of August 2023 were independent and collective decisions which cannot be solely attributed to the Vice-Chancellor. They may have given an impression that they were in line with previous acts of harassment, but they were not part of continued sexual harassment.”
“Where a complaint on the simple reading of the averments made therein appears to be patently barred by limitation, it can be rejected at the very first instance on the analogy of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, without even calling the other side to participate in the proceedings.”
The Court also noted that the appellant herself had moved an application for condonation of delay, thereby admitting that the April 2023 incident was the last act of harassment and that her complaint was delayed.
While dismissing the appeal, the bench made an important moral observation on sexual misconduct:
“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 Court ordered that the judgment must form part of the Vice Chancellor’s resume, to be ensured by him personally.
Case Title:
Vaneeta Patnaik Vs Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti & Ors
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17936 of 2025
Read Order:
Click Here to Read More Reports On the POSH Act