Time Limits vs. Justice: SC Removes Controversial Direction in NUJS VC Case

According to a study, 98% of women are aware that sexual harassment occurs through online mediums, yet 87% of these women never reported any instances to the concerned authorities. This underlines a critical issue: awareness does not always translate into action. The PoSH Act, 2013, was enacted as a landmark step in India’s workplace legislation. For the first time, it legally mandated employers to create workplaces where dignity, equality, and safety are not just ideals but enforceable rights.

The same study revealed a significant gap in organizational efforts that 68% of respondents said their workplaces or educational institutions did not conduct regular workshops on sexual harassment awareness. This gap means many women not only lack clarity about what constitutes harassment and how to report it but are also unaware of important timelines governing complaints under the POSH Act.

Given these realities, the recent Supreme Court ruling related to the NUJS sexual harassment case highlights the urgent need for HR leaders and Internal Committee (IC) members to stay informed and proactive. The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to complaint timelines while protecting the rights and reputations of all parties involved. 

For HR and IC members, it is essential to understand that beyond mere compliance with the PoSH Act, creating an informed, safe, and supportive workplace environment plays a fundamental role in encouraging employees to come forward with complaints. Failure to do so not only breaks the complainant’s trust but also erodes organizational trust in the grievance redressal mechanisms.

Background of the Case

The case originates from the National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS), where a faculty member accused then Vice-Chancellor of sustained sexual harassment starting in 2019. She alleged that he called her to his office, touched her hand, and pressed her to join him for dinner. After she declined, her career progression reportedly suffered, including her removal from a directorial position and a financial inquiry, which she described as retaliatory actions.

In December 2023, the professor filed a complaint with the Local Complaints Committee (LCC), but it was dismissed as time-barred because it was filed beyond the six-month limitation period under the POSH Act. She then approached a Single Judge, who ordered the LCC to reconsider the case. However, this was later set aside by a Division Bench, which held that the later administrative actions did not constitute a continuing wrongdoing extending the timeline for the complaint. She subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court confirmed that the complaint was untimely, as the last alleged incident occurred in April 2023, and rejected the argument of a continuing wrong. While dismissing the appeal, the Court made the notable statement: “It is advisable to forgive the wrongdoer, but not to forget the wrongdoing.” However, it controversially directed that the allegations be permanently recorded in the former Vice-Chancellor’s résumé despite no finding on the merits. This raised significant concerns about imposing reputational consequences without a full inquiry.

Latest Development: Supreme Court Deletes the Controversial Direction

On 22 November 2025, the Supreme Court withdrew its earlier directive requiring the former Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Chakrabarti, to include allegations of sexual harassment in his résumé. The Court explained that its original intention was simply to inform the public about the allegations. However, since no finding on the merits of the case was made, it was appropriate to remove this requirement to avoid causing unfair reputational damage.

A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale approved this change, emphasizing that including the judgment in the résumé would have imposed an unwarranted stigma. The Court also noted that the allegations are still under investigation via an FIR, ensuring continuing independent scrutiny.

This development is a critical reminder for HR and Internal Committee members: allegations should never be recorded as conclusive findings unless a thorough inquiry supports them. Prematurely labeling individuals can unjustly harm reputations and undermine trust in complaint processes.

More importantly, the judgment reaffirmed the strict timelines under the PoSH Act. The bench observed that although these timelines can be challenging for complainants, they are statutory requirements designed to uphold fairness and legal certainty for all parties involved. This balance between timely justice and procedural rigor is essential for maintaining integrity in workplace harassment redressal systems.

Rationale Behind the Time Limit

The law states that Section 9 of the PoSH Act, 2013, requires an aggrieved woman to submit a written complaint of sexual harassment within three months from the date of the alleged incident. This period can be extended by up to another three months if the IC or LCC is satisfied that there is a valid reason for the delay, such as trauma, fear, or other genuine constraints. This limitation period encourages prompt reporting, ensuring evidence remains intact and investigations are timely, supporting the broader legal principle of speedy redressal.

Judicial rulings consistently reinforce the binding nature of these timeframes. For example, the Kerala High Court in Reeja Parambath Naaluthara v. Pradeep T.C. held that complaints filed beyond the condonable period cannot be entertained, emphasizing the need to maintain procedural discipline. Similarly, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Mohammad Altaf Bhat v. Principal Chief Commissioner (2024) upheld the mandatory nature of the limitation period, refusing to extend it despite workplace power imbalances, to preserve legal certainty and fairness for all parties.

Even in this case, the Supreme Court acknowledged that although the time limit may be challenging for complainants, it is a statutory requirement essential to upholding fairness and legal certainty for everyone involved. This reflects the principle that the law may be strict but must be uniformly applied to protect the rights of both complainants and respondents.

Employees often face significant barriers that delay complaint filing, including fear of retaliation, stigma, lack of trust in complaint mechanisms, and concerns about confidentiality or career impact. Addressing these barriers is crucial for organizations to ensure timely reporting and a supportive environment.

To this end, complaint systems like Conduct provide structured support through a simple six-step form with save and preview options, enabling complainants to file at their own pace while maintaining anonymity. Tools such as Cubicle offer anonymous on-demand assistance, while PoSH GPT and cheat sheets provide quick procedural guidance. The My Complaints dashboard enhances transparency by keeping complainants informed on status and next steps, fostering trust and support throughout the process.

Companies need to build environments where employees can report concerns without hesitation, strengthening both trust and the integrity of internal processes. Conduct supports this by bringing statutory requirements and everyday workplace realities together, offering systems that are compliant, clear, and rooted in care.