Complaint Under POSH Dismissed as Time‑Barred Where Later Administrative Acts Lacked Direct Link

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale heard an appeal arising from a High Court order that had set aside the rejection by a Local Complaints Committee (LCC) of a workplace sexual harassment complaint. The narrow issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court was justified in holding that the complaint filed in December 2023 was barred by limitation under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Division Bench’s conclusion that the complaint filed on 26.12.2023 was time‑barred. The judges held that the last alleged incident of sexual harassment had occurred in April 2023 and that subsequent administrative measures taken in August and December 2023 were collective administrative decisions unconnected to an overt act of sexual harassment by the Vice‑Chancellor. The Court emphasised that a POSH complaint must ordinarily be filed within three months of the last incident, extendable by a further three months for reasons recorded in writing, and that where later events were not directly linked to the prior acts of sexual harassment they could not be treated as continuations of the same cause of action. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court also recorded its distinctive admonition: “It is advisable to forgive the wrongdoer, but not to forget the wrongdoing,” and directed that the judgment “shall be made part of the resume of respondent no.1.”

Background The appellant was a faculty member of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS). She lodged a written complaint with the LCC on 26.12.2023 alleging sexual harassment by the Vice‑Chancellor, with incidents beginning in September and October 2019 and culminating in an incident in April 2023 when she alleged a threatened detriment to her career after refusing a proposed trip. The LCC rejected the complaint as barred by time, noting the three‑month limitation from the last incident and the extendable maximum of six months. A Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court quashed the LCC order and directed a merits rehearing, accepting that subsequent treatment created a hostile work environment and could be treated as the last incident.

The Division Bench in the High Court allowed the writ appeal and restored the LCC order, recording that the administrative steps taken after April 2023 — including removal from a directorship and initiation of a preliminary inquiry into project funds — were collective decisions of the Executive Council and an independent complaint by the National Foundation of Corporate Governance (NFCG). The High Court found these actions to be administrative and not “sexual harassment” within Section 3(2) of the POSH Act, as they lacked a direct link to the earlier overt conduct. The Supreme Court accepted this reasoning, applying the statutory prescription in Section 9 and the distinction between a “continuing wrong” and a “recurring wrong” drawn from precedent, and concluded the complaint was time‑barred. The appeal was dismissed. The Court dispensed with further directions but recorded the unusual directive that the judgment be included in the respondent’s professional resume as a lasting admonition.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1106 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17936 of 2025) Case Title: Vaneeta Patnaik v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Ms. Madhavi Divan, Senior Counsel