The Calcutta High Court has granted relief to the NUJS Vice-Chancellor, dismissing a sexual harassment complaint due to lack of credible evidence and time-barred filing under the POSH Act.
The Calcutta High Court has provided relief to the Vice-Chancellor of the National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS), Prof. Chakrabarti, by upholding the dismissal of a sexual harassment complaint filed by a faculty member. A division bench of Justices Harish Tandon and Prasenjit Biswas ruled that the complaint lacked credible evidence and was filed beyond the statutory time limits prescribed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
Key Findings by the Court
Statutory Time Limitations
The court highlighted that under the POSH Act, complaints must be filed within three months of the last alleged incident, with a possible three-month extension in exceptional cases. The complaint, filed on December 26, 2023, alleged incidents dating back to 2019 and ending in April 2023, far exceeding the allowable time frame. The complainant failed to provide a convincing explanation for this significant delay.
Lack of Evidence
The Local Complaint Committee (LCC) had dismissed the complaint due to the absence of credible evidence linking the allegations of harassment to Prof. Chakrabarti. The court concurred, stating:
"Since the last incident of the sexual harassment is alleged in the complaint to have taken place in the Month of April, 2023, and admittedly the complaint was filed on 26th December, 2023 much beyond the normal period of limitation…there is no infirmity in the decision of the LCC in dismissing the said complaint."
Background of the Complaint
The complaint, filed by a faculty member, accused Prof. Chakrabarti of making inappropriate advances and linking professional benefits to personal interactions. It was filed only after the university’s Executive Council initiated an inquiry into the complainant’s alleged professional lapses on December 21, 2023.
Administrative Scrutiny
The complainant had faced prior scrutiny for alleged professional misconduct, including failing to complete a university project and not submitting financial documentation. Additionally, the court noted that the complainant’s role as a partner in Effulgent Educators LLP raised concerns over potential conflicts of interest.
Court’s Reasoning
Collective Decision-Making
The court emphasized that key decisions, such as withholding promotions, were made collectively by the Executive Council, which included senior academics and jurists. The court observed:
"Even if the appellant [VC] is one of the constituents of the Executive Council, decisions are taken collectively by the majority."
Doubts on Veracity
The court noted inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements, including the absence of harassment allegations in earlier communications with the university’s Chancellor. This undermined the credibility of the claims.
