Sexual harassment charge will stay on VC’s resume forever: SC

NEw DelhiIn a rarefied dictate, the sublime margaret court on fri said a judgment that refused to reopen a sexual harassment complaint against a vice-chancellor (VC) of a West Bengal university, due to a statutory time limit for filing such complaints, must be made part of his resume permanently so that the allegations “haunt the wrongdoer forever.”A bench of justices Pankaj Mithal and PB Varale, while upholding the finding that the complaint was barred by time, insisted that the wrongdoing could not be allowed to fade into obscurity. “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 said, ordering the VC to ensure compliance personally.The judgment added: “In this view of the matter, we direct that the incidents of alleged sexual harassment on part of respondent no.1 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.”The case arose from a complaint filed by a university faculty member in December 2023 before the local complaint committee (LCC), alleging sexual harassment by the V-C. She alleged that since 2019 he had subjected her to unwelcome advances, sexual demands, and threats to her career, culminating in an incident in April 2023 when he allegedly pressured her to accompany him on a resort trip. After she refused, she claimed he warned that her career would suffer.The LCC dismissed her complaint as time-barred, noting that it came nearly eight months after the April 2023 incident, beyond the maximum six-month period allowed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).A single judge of the Calcutta High Court later revived the complaint, holding that the intimidation and hostile work environment continued after April 2023, keeping the complaint within the prescribed time limit. However, a division bench overturned this decision in December 2024, reasoning that subsequent administrative actions, such as her removal from a directorship in August 2023, were collective decisions of the university’s Executive Council and not instances of sexual harassment.Agreeing with the division bench, the Supreme Court ruled that the August 2023 actions were administrative in nature and “fall short of being actions amounting to acts of sexual harassment.” The bench stressed that the last actionable incident of harassment was in April 2023, and since the complaint was filed months later, it was barred by limitation.The bench, however, made it clear that their hands were tied only on a technicality, not on the substance of the allegations. Strongly condemning the V-C’s conduct, they remarked: “Though we condemn the statements made by the petitioner in the strongest terms, we are of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances… the incidents of alleged sexual harassment may be forgiven but allowed to haunt the wrongdoer forever.”