Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a complaint of sexual harassment filed by a faculty member of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata against the Vice-Chancellor. The appellant alleged that the respondent, who joined as Vice-Chancellor in July 2019, made unwelcome advances, demanded sexual favours, and threatened her career. The last incident of actual sexual harassment was stated to have occurred in April 2023, when the appellant refused to accompany the respondent to a resort and was threatened that her career would suffer. The appellant lodged a formal complaint with the Local Complaint Committee on 26.12.2023, which was rejected as barred by time because the last incident occurred in April 2023, beyond the prescribed three-month limitation and even the extended six-month period. The appellant challenged the rejection before the High Court. A Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 22.05.2024, holding that the Vice-Chancellor had created an intimidating, offensive and hostile work environment even after April 2023, thus bringing the complaint within time. However, the Division Bench of the High Court in FMA No. 873 of 2024 allowed the writ appeal on 23.12.2024, holding that subsequent administrative actions were collective decisions of the Executive Council and did not constitute sexual harassment; the complaint was therefore barred by limitation. Aggrieved, the appellant moved the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the Division Bench was justified in non-suiting the appellant on the ground of limitation. The Court analysed the definition of sexual harassment under Section 2(n) and the circumstances under Section 3 of the POSH Act, including threats, hostile environment, and interference with work. It noted that a complaint must be filed within three months from the last incident, extendable by three months for recorded reasons, making the maximum period six months. The Court found that the last incident of actual sexual harassment occurred in April 2023, and the complaint filed on 26.12.2023 was beyond the limitation period. The subsequent removal of the appellant as Director of CFRGS on 29.08.2023 and the inquiry into project funds were based on an independent complaint from NFCG and were collective decisions of the Executive Council, not unilateral acts of the Vice-Chancellor. The Court held that these administrative actions did not have a direct link to the earlier sexual harassment and therefore did not amount to continuing wrong. The Court distinguished between continuing wrong, where the injury itself persists, and recurring wrong, where a fresh cause of action arises each time, relying on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh. The alleged harassment of April 2023 was a complete act and did not continue thereafter. The Court also noted that the appellant had not mentioned sexual harassment in her prior communications to the Chancellor and Executive Council. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the Division Bench was justified in holding the complaint time-barred and dismissed the civil appeal.
Headnote
A) Sexual Harassment - Definition and Scope - Sections 2(n), 3, 9 POSH Act - Sexual harassment includes unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature and circumstances like threats of detrimental treatment, creating hostile work environment; complaint must be filed within three months from last incident, extendable by three months - The Court examined the complaint and found the last incident of actual sexual harassment occurred in April 2023, making the 26.12.2023 complaint beyond the maximum six-month period - Held that the complaint was patently barred by limitation (Paras 10-14,21). B) Limitation - Rejection of Patently Time-Barred Complaint - Section 9 POSH Act, Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Limitation is a mixed question of fact and law but a complaint patently barred on a plain reading can be rejected at threshold - The Court held that the LCC rightly rejected the complaint as time-barred without calling the other side, and the Single Judge erred in overturning that decision - Held that the Division Bench was justified in non-suiting the appellant (Paras 15,7). C) Sexual Harassment - Subsequent Administrative Actions - Section 3(2) POSH Act - Acts must have direct link to overt sexual harassment to fall under "in relation to" or "connected with" - Removal as Director, CFRGS and preliminary inquiry were based on an independent NFCG complaint and collective Executive Council decisions, not unilateral acts of the Vice-Chancellor; no gender-based hostile environment - Held that these subsequent events did not constitute sexual harassment or continue the earlier acts (Paras 23-27). D) Limitation - Continuing and Recurring Wrong - Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 - Continuing wrong is when injury itself persists; recurring wrong gives fresh cause of action each time - The alleged sexual harassment of April 2023 was a complete act and did not continue; the August 2023 administrative measures were independent and not part of continued sexual harassment - Held that the last incident of sexual harassment remained April 2023, making the complaint time-barred (Paras 28-29). E) Sexual Harassment - Prior Grievances and Allegations - Section 9 POSH Act - Absence of mention of sexual harassment in prior communications to Chancellor and Executive Council is relevant to limitation and merits - The appellant had not alleged sexual harassment in her communications before December 2023; her complaint filed in December 2023 was beyond limitation - Held that the Division Bench correctly found no link between later events and earlier sexual harassment (Paras 30,7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in non-suiting the appellant on the ground that her complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 was barred by limitation.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the complaint was barred by limitation as the last incident of sexual harassment occurred in April 2023 and the subsequent administrative actions were independent and not continuing sexual harassment; accordingly, the Division Bench's decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Law Points
- Sexual harassment includes unwelcome acts and circumstances like threats and hostile environment
- complaint under POSH Act must be filed within three months from last incident
- extendable by three months
- LCC can reject patently time-barred complaint
- administrative actions independent of prior sexual harassment do not constitute continuing wrong
- continuing wrong distinguished from recurring wrong
