Supreme Court Holds NUJS Faculty's Sexual Harassment Complaint Against VC Time-Barred; But Directs VC To Mention Judgment In His Resume

The Supreme Court today(September 12) ruled that the sexual harassment alleged by a faculty member of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Science against the Vice Chancellor of the University, is time-barred as the alleged incident happened in April 2023, but the complaint was filed in December 2023, after a maximum statutory limitation of six months prescribed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

It was argued that while the last alleged sexual harassment took place in April 2023, the consequent administrative actions, such as her removal from the post of Director, Centre of Financial, Regulatory and Governance Studies or inquiry by the Executive Council over the misutilisation of UGC funds, also constituted acts of sexual harassment and therefore, the complaint was not time-barred. 

However, the Court held that the last alleged incident in April 2023 was a complete act in itself, and the subsequent administrative measures, although they may have given the impression that it was done as a matter of retaliation and were linked to previous acts, did not constitute sexual harassment.  

"The alleged act of harassment of April 2023, was a complete act in itself and had not continued thereafter. The administrative measures of August 2023, were independent and were collective decisions of the NFCG and the Executive Council which cannot be solely attributed to the Vice-Chancellor. The said decision may have caused inconvenience to the appellant or may have given an impression that they are in line with previous acts of harassment, but they were not part of the continued sexual harassment. The subsequent events have no connection to the earlier act of sexual misconduct and as such, fall clearly out of the preview of acts or behaviours amounting to sexual harassment. In this way, the incident of April 2023, remains the last event related to sexual harassment."

While the Court upheld the decision of the division bench of the Calcutta High Court that the complaint is time-barred, it directed that this judgment shall be made a part of the Vice-Chancellor's resume, a compliance with which shall be strictly ensured by him personally. 

"In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the discussion, we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court committed no error of law in restoring the decision of the LCC that the complaint of the appellant is time barred and is liable to be dismissed. 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. In this view of the matter, we direct that the incidents of alleged sexual harassment on part of respondent no.1 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 complanint was made by Vaneeta Patnaik, a faculty member, against Dr. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, the VC.

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed that there may have been a wrong on the part of the Vice-Chancellor, but the complaint was not investigated on technical grounds.

In this case, the Appellant alleged sexual harassment at the hands of the Vice-Chancellor, the last act of which was allegedly committed in April 2023. But since she formally filed a complaint on December 26, 2023, the Local Complaints Committee rejected it as time-barred, against which she filed a writ petition.

The single judge allowed her petition and directed a fresh hearing on the grounds that she was subjected to threat of detrimental treatment in her employment and the Vice-Chancellor created an intimidating, offensive and hostile work environment for her.

It was the case of the Appellant that she was subjected to administrative actions after April 2023, which formed a continuing act of sexual harassment. The Appellant alleged that the incidents began in July 2019. In August, she was removed as Director, Centre of Financial, Regulatory and Governance Studies. During this time, a one-man inquiry commission was set up by the Executive Council to investigate an allegation of misutilisation of the UGC grant. It was resolved that a sum of Rs. 1 lac be refunded immediately by the NUJS.

The division bench said that the alleged incidents after April 2023 did not constitute sexual harassment. 

This was the specific issue before the Court as to whether subsequent actions constituted sexual harassment within the meaning of Section 3(2) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The Court also acknowledged that the Appellant herself recognised that she had delayed in filing the complaint. 

It said: "The appellant, in filing the complaint, also moved an application for condonation of delay stating that there were “mitigating circumstances” which she had attempted to resolve within the institution and when she failed, she then filed the complaint. The very fact that the appellant was conscious of the fact that her complaint was delayed, proves that she herself treated the act of April 2023, to be the last incident of sexual harassment and as such, tried to explain the delay in filing the complaint.."

Case Details: VANEETA PATNAIK v NIRMAL KANTI CHAKRABARTI & ORS.|Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17936 of 2025

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 902

Click Here To Read Order

Appearances: Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora(Appellant) and Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan (Respondent 1)