नवीनतम
SC dismisses sexual harassment case against VC, but with rider
NEW DELHI [Maha Media]: The Supreme Court on Friday said that the incidents of alleged sexual harassment on the part of the vice-chancellor of West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata, may be forgiven but be allowed to haunt him forever, and its judgment shall be made part of his resume, compliance with which shall be strictly ensured by him personally.
A bench comprising justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale upheld the rejection of a woman faculty member's plea against the VC, for being time-barred. The single judge bench of the high court had restored her complaint, but the division bench allowed an appeal against the order passed by the single judge.
The apex court said a complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act is mandatorily required to be filed within a maximum period of six months.
The apex court, in the verdict delivered on the complainant’s plea, said it is of the view that the division bench of the High Court committed no error of law in restoring the decision of the LCC (Local Complaint Committee) that the complaint of the appellant is time-barred and is liable to be dismissed.
However, the apex court said it is advisable to forgive the wrongdoer, but not to forget the wrongdoing, and added that the wrong which has been committed against the appellant (the complainant) 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 the part of respondent no.1 (VC) 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”, said the apex court.
The bench noted that LCC rejected the complaint as barred by time since the last alleged incident of sexual harassment occurred in April 2023, but the complaint was filed on December 26, 2023. The apex court said that this was not only beyond the prescribed period of limitation of three months but also beyond the extendable period of limitation of six months.
The bench said the appellant, in addressing her grievances to the chancellor, had not made any mention whatsoever of the sexual harassment which may have taken place in August 2023 onwards. “The appellant initiated the complaint on 26.12.2023, immediately after the Executive Council meeting on 21.12.2023, which had resolved to inquire into diverse acts of misconduct on the part of the appellant, that could give an impression that the complaint was filed in retaliation”, it said.
According to the apex court bench, 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”, said the apex court.
The bench said the incident of removal of appellant subsequently, as the Director, Centre of Financial, Regulatory and Governance Studies, cannot be attributed as an act of sexual harassment in connection with the previous incidents, and it was based upon the report of an independent body.
“The inquiry into the project funds was taken up by the Executive Council and it was a collective decision and not a unilateral action of the Vice-Chancellor. Thus, the said act would also not amount to an act of sexual harassment in conjunction with the previous reported acts”, said the apex court.
The bench said the actions taken against the appellant in August 2023 are administrative in nature and do not create a gender based hostile environment, and hence, fall short of being actions amounting to acts of sexual harassment.
"It would be important to refer to the expressions 'in relation to' or 'connected with' used in Section 3(2) of the Act. The use of the above expression clearly demonstrates that there has to be a direct link between the action complained of and an overt act of sexual harassment. In view of what has been said above, we find no such direct link between the last incident of sexual harassment which happened in April 2023, and those referred to subsequently in August 2023 or December 2023", said the bench.
The bench said the alleged act of harassment of April 2023 was a complete act in itself and had not continued thereafter, and the administrative measures of August 2023 were independent and were collective decisions of the National Foundation of Corporate Governance (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 purview of acts or behaviours amounting to sexual harassment. In this way, the incident of April 2023, remains the last event related to sexual harassment”, said the apex court.
The bench, referring to Section 9 of the POSH Act, said, a complaint of sexual harassment is mandatorily required to be filed within a period of three months from the date of the last incident of such harassment or within a further extended period of three months, i.e., within a maximum period of six months from the date of the last incident of sexual harassment.
“No doubt, the issue of limitation is ordinarily a mixed question of fact and law, and it may not be possible to throw out a complaint at the threshold without collecting material on the factual aspects relating to the limitation. Nonetheless, where a complaint on the simple reading of the averments made therein appears to be patently barred by limitation, it can be rejected at the very first instance on the analogy of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, without even calling the other side to participate in the proceedings”, said the apex court.
