The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the 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 National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS) against the Vice-Chancellor (VC) of the law school on the ground of limitation, but directed that the allegations be permanently recorded in his resume.

A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and PB Varale held that the complaint filed with the filed with Local Complaints Committee (LCC) under the PoSH Act in December 2023 was barred by time since the last alleged incident of sexual harassment took place in April 2023.

However, the Court observed that while the complaint could not be entertained on technical grounds, the wrongdoing could not be erased from record.

“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 bench said.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by an NUJS professor who had accused VC Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti of repeatedly making unwelcome advances since 2019, including dinner requests, inappropriate touching and threats after she declined his proposals.

Her promotion was delayed in 2019 but later approved in 2022. She alleged that the last direct act of sexual harassment occurred in April 2023, when she was asked to accompany him to a resort.

In August 2023, she was removed as Director of a research centre and an inquiry into her handling of project funds was initiated by the Executive Council of NUJS.

In December, 2023 she filed a complaint before the LCC which rejected her plea as time-barred under the POSH Act.

The LCC noted that the complaint came only in December 2023, beyond even the maximum six-month window under law.

She challenged the rejection before the Calcutta High Court. In May 2024, a single-judge of the High Court set aside the LCC’s decision and directed that her complaint be heard afresh. The single-judge held that the VC had continued to create an intimidating and hostile work environment, and therefore the complaint was within time.

However, a Division Bench of the High Court reversed this finding in December 2024. It noted that the actions taken against the faculty member after April 2023, such as her removal as Director of the Centre for Financial, Regulatory and Governance Studies and the initiation of an inquiry into research funds, were collective decisions of the University’s Executive Council and could not be attributed personally to the VC. The Division Bench held that these were administrative measures and did not constitute sexual harassment.

This prompted the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.

The apex court examined the complaint in detail and found that the allegations of sexual harassment began in September 2019 when the VC allegedly called the appellant to his office, touched her hand and pressed her to join him for dinner.

The final allegation of sexual harassment was said to have taken place in April 2023 when the VC allegedly asked her to accompany him on a trip to a resort. When she declined, he allegedly warned that her career would “suffer badly.”

The Court held that the subsequent developments in August 2023, including her removal from a post and the financial inquiry, could not be linked to the April 2023 incident. It ruled that these actions were taken by independent bodies and were administrative in nature, not sexual harassment under the POSH Act.

“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 bench said.

The Court also rejected the plea that the case represented a “continuing wrong.” It explained that the April 2023 incident was a complete act in itself, and subsequent administrative measures could not extend the limitation period.

“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,” the Court said.

While upholding the rejection of the complaint, the bench made an unusual direction to ensure accountability.

“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,” the Court ordered.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Court stressing that though limitation barred relief, the allegations would remain part of the Vice-Chancellor’s professional record.

The appellant-faculty member was represented by Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora and advocate Rishad Ahmed Chowdhury.

The respondents were represented by Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan along with advoates 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.