Time-Barred Harassment Complaint Should ‘Haunt’ Vice-Chancellor: Supreme Court

Quick Summary

• The Supreme court ruled that a sexual harassment complaint against Dr. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, Vice-Chancellor of kolkata’s WBNUJS, was time-barred.
• Despite legal technicalities preventing investigation, the court declared the wrongdoing should “haunt” Mr. Chakrabarti and directed him to include the judgment in his resume personally.
• A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and P.B. varale stated it is indeed advisable to forgive wrongdoers but not forget their wrongs.
• The Division Bench of Calcutta High court upheld the decision of the Local Complaint Committee (LCC) to dismiss the complaint for being filed beyond prescribed limitation periods under Section 9 of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act, 2013.
• The alleged sexual harassment incident occurred in April 2023; however, the complaint was only filed on December 26, 2023-exceeding both three-month and six-month extendable deadlines for filing complaints per law.

Indian Opinion Analysis
The Supreme Court’s judgment highlights significant nuances around addressing workplace sexual harassment within prescribed legal frameworks while emphasizing broader ethical accountability for individuals in leadership positions like Mr. Chakrabarti. By requiring documentation of this verdict in his resume,it underscores an innovative approach to embedding moral responsibility despite procedural barriers that prevent investigation due to delayed complaints.

For India’s institutional framework combating workplace harassment cases under laws such as Section 9 of Sexual harassment at Workplace Act (2013), this ruling may spark discussions on balancing procedural limitations with potential modifications reflecting complexities involved in reporting sensitive grievances late-the social stigma or fear often linked emotions delays judgments log preserve overall compliance mandate).

Read More