By Y Laxmi Samhita

Copyright feminisminindia

In a recent case, a ruling by the Supreme Court clarified the law according to the POSH Act. Sexual harassment complaints are time-bounded and can be rejected if they are filed too late. Under Section 9 of the POSH Act, an aggrieved woman can make a complaint of sexual harassment at the workplace within three months of the incident, or the latest in a series of incidents, to the Internal Complaints Committee or the Local Complaints Committee.

The extended period allows the complainant three more months after the initial period. But beyond this period, the accused will not be criminally punished, barring a few exceptions. This law has serious implications for victims of sexual harassment, because the time constraint forces them to come to terms with their experience and gather the courage to report it in a society where victim blaming is all too common.

Vaneeta Patnaik vs. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti and Ors.

This law is being discussed again because of the case filed by Vaneeta Patnaik, a faculty member at West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata, against Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, the Vice Chancellor of the university. She had filed the case in her Local Complaints Committee (LCC) on December 26, 2023, but the last alleged incident of sexual harassment took place in April 2023, due to which it was rejected as it was time-barred. Moreover, the court claims that the appellant was aware of her delay, as she had also appealed for condonation of delay. Therefore, the LCC rejected the complaint as it was time-barred, the last alleged incident taking place eight months before the complaint was registered. This was beyond the period of three months and the maximum period of six months.

Based on this judgment, the appellant filed an appeal in the Calcutta High Court, which restored the decision of the LCC but allowed her to appeal against it. Then in the Supreme Court, a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale ruled that the High Court did not make any error of law in restoring the decision of the LCC. The bench argued that the issue of limitation is not just law, but rather a mixture of fact and law. ‘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,’ the court said.

The court also claimed that her removal from the position of Director of the Centre for Financial, Regulatory and Governance Studies in August 2023 and cannot be treated as continued harassment under Section 3(2) of the POSH Act, because an independent body found that there is no direct link between the sexual harassment and these administrative measures. Moreover, it also argued that by requesting for condonation of delay, the appellant herself treated April 2023 as the last incident, with the harassment beginning from 2019. To quote the bench, ‘[t]he administrative measures of August 2023 were independent and collective decisions which cannot be solely attributed to the Vice-Chancellor. They may have given an impression that they were in line with previous acts of harassment, but they were not part of continued sexual harassment.’

Moral consequences without legal action?

However, while rejecting the possibility of a criminal case, the top court said that moral consequences were necessary. Justice Mithal wrote in the judgment that ‘[i]t 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”. Therefore, despite the lack of a criminal case, the judgment must be included in Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti’s resume. Even though the case cannot be investigated on technical grounds, it must “haunt the wrongdoer forever‘.

This case reinstates the time-bound nature of sexual harassment complaints, showing that action can only be taken if the complaint is filed within the stipulated time period. This might restrict access to institutional justice for many victims. As the limitation allows a case to be rejected at the threshold, there may not even be a full inquiry, effectively closing the door on victims to be heard. It can be argued that the extended period of six months is a reasonable time frame for victims to seek advice and find support.

While not forcing the victims to seek justice immediately, it ensures they have a few months to process the trauma, and inquires into the case while the evidence is still relatively new, and at the same time, prevents the stagnation of cases. Therefore, it can be said that the court tries to balance swift resolution of the case with the challenges that victims face in coming forward after such incidents of harassment.

Challenges faced by victims in filing timely complaints of sexual harassment

However, these reasons are outweighed by the challenges faced by the victims in the aftermath of harassment. Coming forward and registering a complaint would mean subjecting oneself to scrutiny and stigma in a society that looks to point fingers at the victim. Besides fearing repurcussions from the perpetrator, the victim also has to consider how it would affect their personal and professional life and their workplace environment. Workplace harassment often involves power imbalances, and the psychological toll of dealing with such harassment can delay the filing of complaint.

Moreover, the psychological trauma of such incidents can prevent many victims from filing a complaint, as they may take time to process the incident and reach out for support. The pressure to report quickly might create an additional burden on the victim. Sometimes the victim may be unaware of the legal requirements, and sometimes systemic barriers may restrict their access to legal protection and support networks, thus doubly discriminating against those from marginalised communities.

In a lot of cases, one may not even recognise initially that the incident was a case of sexual assault, which again leads to a delay in reporting. Movements like #MeToo attempt to call out perpetrators and thus have brought to light incidents from years ago. How does one frame such movements in the face of these legal restrictions?

Judgments such as these, while recognising ‘moral wrongs‘, risk perpetuating harmful environments. They lead to further isolation, as delayed complaints, however genuine, are treated as legally invalid, leaving broader issues like workplace culture or systemic harassment unaddressed.