Forgiven, Not Forgotten: The Supreme Court’s Directives In A Time-Barred POSH Case To “Haunt Wrongdoer Forever”
The present Judgment presents a noteworthy juxtaposition. While the Respondent prevailed in the legal proceedings as the complaint was time-barred, the aforesaid directives issued by the Apex Court could cause lifelong reputational ramifications for the Respondent.
In the recent decision of the Supreme Court dated 12 September 2025 in Vaneeta Patnaik v. Nirmal Kranti Chakraborty & Ors. (2025 INSC 1106) (“Judgment”), the Apex Court has held that the complaints pertaining to the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”) cannot be investigated upon if the same is beyond the statutory limitation period. Nevertheless, the Court imposed severe reputational consequences on the alleged wrongdoer.
The case involves Ms Vaneeta Patnaik (“Appellant”), a faculty member at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata (“NUJS”), and Dr Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, the Vice Chancellor of NUJS (“Respondent”). The Appellant filed the complaint dated 26 December 2023 against the Respondent in the Local Complaint Committee (“LCC”), alleging sexual assault by the Respondent. The LCC dismissed the said complaint as time-barred since the last incident of sexual harassment occurred in April 2023. The complaint was deemed to be beyond the prescribed period of limitation of three months and also beyond the extendable period of limitation of a maximum of six months.
Thereafter, the Appellant moved to the Calcutta High Court which quashed the order of LCC and directed that the matter be re-heard on merits. The reasoning of the Calcutta High Court was rooted in the fact that, post April 2023, the Respondent created a hostile and intimidating work atmosphere where the Appellant faced a subsisting threat of detrimental treatment. Hence, the complaint was not time-barred. This was noted from the fact that on 29 August 2023, the Appellant was removed from the post of Director of the Centre of Financial, Regulatory and Governance Studies (“CFRGS”) and that a preliminary inquiry was instituted against her by the Executive Council.
The Single Judge’s decision was challenged by the Respondents in a writ appeal before a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court which allowed the appeal and held that the alleged actions of the Respondent post April 2023 cannot be attributed to him, as these decisions were made by the Executive Council of NUJS. The Executive Council consists of eminent jurists, academicians and even judges of the Supreme Court. In light of the foregoing, it was held improbable that the Respondent could have persuaded the decisions of the Executive Council against the Appellant. Therefore, the Division Bench held that the last incident of sexual harassment conclusively took place in April 2023 and the LCC was correct in dismissing the complaint as time-barred.
The Appellant filed a further appeal before the Supreme Court which analysed the definition of ‘Sexual Harassment’ combined with various provisions of the POSH Act. Thereafter, the Court came to the conclusion that the complaint of the Appellant is certainly beyond time. The Apex Court held that the removal of the Appellant from the position of Director of the CFRGS in August 2023 was independent from the Respondent’s acts of sexual harassment. This is because the Appellant was removed from the said position owing to an independent complaint from the National Foundation of Corporate Governance, a central government undertaking (“NFCG”). The NFCG alleged that the research project, as per the Memorandum of Understanding executed between the Appellant and the NFCG, was not submitted within the agreed-upon time. Thus, the funds granted to the Appellant for the project ought to be refunded. The investigation into the said project funds was conducted by the Executive Council, which also fell beyond the Respondent’s sphere of influence.
The Apex Court thus held that, though the aforesaid circumstances of August 2023 may be inconvenient to the Appellant, they are administrative in nature. No direct link can be made between the actions complained of and the overt act of sexual harassment as prescribed under Section 3(2) of the POSH Act. Hence, the same cannot be construed as constituting an act of sexual harassment or creating a gender-based hostile environment. The Court relied upon the judgment of Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 and observed that the alleged act of sexual harassment in April 2023 constituted a complete act in itself and cannot be counted as a “continuing act” as it has not continued thereafter. Thus, owing to the complaint being time-barred, the Apex Court held that “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.”
The Apex Court highlighted that the Appellant herself had preferred an application seeking condonation of delay. It was thus held that the fact that the Appellant was conscious that her complaint was delayed proves that she herself treated the incident of April 2023 to be the last incident of sexual harassment. This finding accords with the earlier judgments of the Apex Court wherein the Court has applied the maxim of dura lex sed lex (the law is harsh, but it is the law) and held that limitation is a rule of law and must be applied as intended by the legislature. Courts are bereft of the power to extend the outer limit fixed by the statute on mere equitable grounds, even in cases arising under the POSH framework.
Even though the Apex Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Division Bench, it nevertheless observed that: “It is advisable to forgive the wrongdoer, but not to forget the wrongdoing. The wrong which has been committed against the appellant may not be investigated on technical grounds, but it must not be forgotten.” The Court further directed that the alleged incidents of sexual harassment attributed to the Respondent “may be forgiven but allowed to haunt the wrongdoer forever.” In line with the same, the Apex Court directed that the present Judgment be made part of the resume of the Respondent and directed the Respondent to ensure strict compliance with the same personally.
The present Judgment thus presents a noteworthy juxtaposition. While the Respondent prevailed in the legal proceedings as the complaint was time-barred, the aforesaid directives issued by the Apex Court could cause lifelong reputational ramifications for the Respondent. Simultaneously, the present judgment may also be construed to constrain such individuals who attempt to strategically circumvent limitation bars in POSH cases. Therefore, while the judgment succeeds as a deterrent, it sets a challenging precedent where allegations, untested on their merits, can “haunt the wrongdoer forever,” even after a successful plea of limitation has defeated liability under the POSH Act.
Disclaimer – Views expressed are personal.