NATIONAL: Supreme Court to VC: “Add Sexual Harassment Case to Your Resume”
India’s Supreme Court delivered a nuanced ruling in a workplace sexual harassment dispute at a premier law university in West Bengal.
While dismissing the case due to procedural delays, the bench mandated a symbolic measure to ensure accountability lingers.
The order, issued on September 12, underscores the judiciary’s stance on institutional misconduct, blending leniency with lasting reflection.
Allegations at NUJS
A female faculty member at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences accused Vice-Chancellor Prof. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti of repeated sexual harassment since his 2019 appointment. She claimed the most recent incident occurred in April 2023.
Her formal complaint reached the Local Complaints Committee in December 2023, exceeding the three-month filing limit under the POSH Act, plus a potential three-month extension. The committee dismissed it on timeliness grounds.
Counteractions and Escalation
Amid the probe, allegations surfaced against the complainant for fund misuse in her departmental role. An inquiry followed, resulting in her removal from directorial duties.
She escalated the matter to the university’s Executive Council and Chancellor, linking her ouster to retaliation. The dispute eventually landed before the Supreme Court via petition.
Judicial Review
A bench led by Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale examined the delayed filing but separated it from the relief of duties, deeming no direct retaliation evident.
The court affirmed that procedural bars prevent investigation but do not erase the gravity of claims. It emphasized forgiveness for individuals while insisting wrongs remain etched in memory.
Symbolic Directive
In a distinctive remedy, the justices directed Chakrabarti to reference this judgment in future resumes or professional profiles. This ensures the episode serves as a perpetual reminder of alleged misconduct.
Key aspects of the ruling:
- Case dismissal: Affirmed on time-bar rationale.
- No linkage: Harassment unrelated to complainant’s demotion.
- Broader message: Promotes institutional vigilance without punitive overreach.
The verdict highlights evolving judicial approaches to workplace safety, prioritizing deterrence through documentation over dismissal.