Supreme Court holds sexual harassment complaint as time-barred

The Supreme Court in Vaneeta Patnaik v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti & Ors. on 12 September 2025 ruled that a faculty member’s sexual harassment complaint filed against the Vice-Chancellor of NUJS was barred by limitation under the POSH Act. The complaint, lodged in December 2023, alleged unwelcome advances beginning in 2019, with the last incident said to have occurred in April 2023. The Local Complaints Committee rejected the complaint as time-barred, a decision initially overturned by a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court but restored by the Division Bench.

Upholding the Division Bench, the Supreme Court held that under Section 9 of the POSH Act, a complaint must be filed within three months of the last incident, extendable by another three months if justified. Administrative measures taken against the complainant after April 2023, including her removal from a directorship and initiation of inquiries by the Executive Council, could not be linked to earlier alleged harassment and did not extend the limitation period. The Court emphasised the distinction between a continuing wrong and a recurring wrong, concluding that the April 2023 episode was the final incident.

While dismissing the appeal, the Court made the unusual observation that though the allegations could not be pursued legally due to limitation, they “must not be forgotten.” It directed that reference to the incidents be reflected in the Vice-Chancellor’s resume, thereby attaching a lasting reputational consequence. The ruling highlights the strict application of statutory timelines under the POSH Act while signalling that reputational accountability may operate independently of legal remedies.