Supreme Court dismisses complaint of sexual harassment barred by limitation on time

At a glance

• The Honourable Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) has ruled that a complaint of sexual harassment filed beyond the statutory period of limitation is time barred and cannot be subjected to investigation.

We would like to express gratitude to JSA for their contribution on this publication.

Supreme Court’s ruling

In the case of Vaneeta Patnaik v Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti & Ors. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Number 17936 of 2025), the Supreme Court addressed critical questions surrounding limitation in filing of complaints under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 (POSH Act). While examining whether a complaint filed beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under the POSH Act can be adjudicated upon, the Supreme Court upheld the decision passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Calcutta (Calcutta HC), which rejected a complaint of sexual harassment by declaring it time barred. 

Facts of the case

In this case, the appellant, a faculty member of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata (NUJS) filed a formal complaint of sexual harassment against the Vice-Chancellor of NUJS before the Local Complaint Committee (LCC) on 26 December 2023. The appellant alleged that they were subjected to sexual harassment by the respondent, including unwelcome acts, behaviour, sexual advances, demands and requests for sexual favours, etc on several instances which continued from September 2019 to April 2023, following which the appellant was removed from their post in NUJS in August 2023. While it is unusual to dismiss a complaint of sexual harassment on technical grounds of limitation, the LCC rejected the appellant’s complaint on account of being filed beyond the statutory period of limitation of three months, and even beyond the extended period of limitation of six months (under Section 9 of the POSH Act).

Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Single Judge of Calcutta HC, which quashed the LCC’s order and directed that the case be heard on merits. Subsequently, the respondent challenged the order passed by the Single Judge, and the Division Bench of Calcutta HC while upholding the decision passed by the LCC, set aside the order passed by the Single Judge, observing that the appellant’s removal from their post in NUJS in August 2023 cannot be linked to the incidents of sexual harassment listed in their complaint.

Analysis and findings

To determine the legal validity of the above ruling, the Supreme Court evaluated the meaning of ‘sexual harassment’ under the POSH Act to not only include unwelcome acts or behaviour of sexual nature but also 'any circumstance connected with such act or behaviour', like creating an offensive or hostile work environment, threatening about employment status, etc. However, the Supreme Court emphasised that a complaint of sexual harassment is mandatorily required to be filed within the statutory limitation period of three months, (or extendable period of six months), 'from the date of the last incident of sexual harassment', and patently barred complaints can be rejected at the very first instance. 

While examining the facts of the case and aspects relating to limitation, the Supreme Court observed that the incident of their removal in August 2023 was the outcome of a collective administrative decision that could not be unilaterally attributed to the respondent, and cannot be construed as amounting to sexual harassment, de-linking it to the series of incidents of sexual harassment before August 2023. Considering that the appellant also treated April 2023 as the last incident of sexual harassment they were subjected to before they filed the complaint in December 2023 (well beyond the statutory limitation period under POSH Act), the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of their appeal on the ground of it being time-barred. However, acknowledging the gravity of the allegations, the Supreme Court recognised that although the complaint may not be investigated on technical grounds, it must not be forgotten, and imposed severe reputational consequences on the respondent, by requiring the respondent to include the Supreme Court’s decision as part of his resume going forward.

Conclusion

This judgment speaks of adjudication of sexual harassment complaints under the POSH Act, emphasising criticality of statutory limitation periods. While the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint on technical grounds, an unusual departure from the norm of merit-based adjudication in POSH cases, it ensured the continuing impact of these allegations by imposing reputational consequences on the respondent. The decision reflects an attempt to establish the weight of sexual harassment claims, that though procedurally barred, continue to bring lasting damage to the wrongdoer.