Calcutta High Court upholds dismissal of sexual harassment complaint against NUJS VC

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the dismissal of a sexual harassment complaint against Vice Chancellor (VC) of the National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS), Kolkata, Dr. Nirmal Kanti Chakraborti. .A Bench of Justices Harish Tandon and Prasenjit Biswas upheld the decision taken in this regard by the Local Complaints Committee (LCC) established under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act)..The LCC had dismissed the sexual harassment complaint filed against Chakraborti by an Associate Professor on the ground of limitation as the complaint was filed in December 2023 while the alleged incident was said to have taken place in March the same year.The High Court said that even if the period of limitation was ignored, in this case, the allegations raised by the complainant of facing retaliation from the Executive Committee of the University, do not constitute sexual harassment as defined under the POSH Act. "The plea taken by the (complainant) would have been accepted provided the circumstances contemplated under Section 3 of the POSH Act is related to or connected with the sexual harassment defined under Section 2 (n) of the said Act. As we do not find those circumstances relatable to the sexual harassment but unconnected with it for the reason that such decision were taken by an executive council collectively and not by (Chakraborti) alone; even if the (Chakraborti) being one of the constituent of the executive council but the decisions are taken by the majority and looking upon the constitution of the executive council consisting of notable academicians and the jurists including the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court, it is improbable that (Chakraborti) would exert his position and would manipulate the decision taken by the executive council", the Court said. .The complainant in this case was appointed as a teaching assistant at NUJS in 2003. She alleged that in in 2019, after he was appointed as VC, Chakraborty called her to her office on several occasions and under the guise of giving her career advice, suggested that they develop a "personal relationship".According to her, on her refusal, Chakraborti took steps to put her promotion on hold and it was only in 2022 that she was finally promoted by the Executive Committee. The complainant alleged that Chakraborti subsequently asked her to go on a trip with him and on her refusal, told her that her career would be seriously affected. The complainant then approached the local committee with her complaint in December 2023 and also moved an application for a condonation of delay in 2024. This application for condoning the delay was denied by the LCC because the alleged harassment had taken place between 2019 and 2023.Following this, the complainant moved the High Court and a single-judge set aside the order of the LCC, directing it to re-evaluate the complaint. This prompted Chakraborty to move the present appeal before the Division Bench challenging the single-judge's order. Chakraborty's counsel stressed on the aspect of delay and limitation and also highlighted that the decision to put her promotion on hold was taken by an Executive Committee which comprises academicians and jurists on the basis of a complaint from an assistant professor.It was also contended that the complainant moved the LCC only in response to proceedings initiated by the Executive Committee in 2023 relating to possible misappropriation of funds under the control of the complainant. .The Division Bench concurred with Chakraborty's contentions and therefore, set aside the order of the single-judge effectively upholding the LCC's dismissal of the sexual harassment complaint. .Chakraborty was represented by advocates Lakhi Kumar Gupta, Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Biswaroop Bhattacharya, Arijita Ghosh and Ananya Ghosh.The complainant was represented by advocates Kollol Basu, Rohit Das, Suman Banerjee, Kishwar Rahman, Divya J Tekriwal, Preetam Majumdar and Sristi Roy.NUJS was represented by advocates Pratik Dhar and Pappu Adhikari. .[Read Judgment]