Wrongdoing Noted, Justice Denied: The Curious Case of NUJS

In a paradoxical judgment, the Supreme Court acknowledged grave allegations against the NUJS Vice-Chancellor, ordered they remain recorded, yet barred accountability.

This Supreme Court judgement has puzzled the onlookers, but what might seem tone deaf, is in fact the result of a legality that led the court to pardon and punish in the same sentence. 

Backgrounds of the case

This case arose in the highly reputed National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS), where a faculty member alleged that she was continuously harassed by the Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti. The chain of allegations, she said, began in 2019 when the VC allegedly called her to his office, touched her hand, and pressed her to join him for dinner.

She further claimed that when she refused his advances, her career suffered as a result. In 2019, her promotion was delayed, though it was eventually cleared in 2022. According to her, the pattern of harassment continued over the years through repeated dinner invitations and inappropriate conduct.

The final alleged incident took place in April 2023 when the VC allegedly asked her to accompany him to a resort and warned that her career would “suffer badly” if she declined. A few months later, in August 2023, she was removed as Director of a research centre, and the university’s Executive Council initiated an inquiry into her handling of project funds, which she described as an act of retaliation.

Legal History of the case

In December 2023, the professor filed a complaint before the Local Complaints Committee (LCC) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The LCC dismissed the complaint as they observed that the complaint was time-barred,as it was filed after the prescribed time period of six months.

The professor then approached the Calcutta High Court. In May 2024, a single-judge bench allowed her plea and directed the LCC to hear the complaint again. Herein the court pointed out that the continuing hostile work environment created by the Vice-Chancellor’s conduct could not be overlooked and that the grievances deserved to be heard.

However in December 2024, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside this order. It held that the subsequent actions of the university, such as her removal as Director of a research centre and the inquiry into project funds, were administrative decisions taken by the Executive Council. These could not be treated as extensions of sexual harassment under the POSH Act, and therefore complaint therefore remained barred by limitation.

The professor then appealed to the Supreme Court, which proceeded to examine the allegations in detail.

Supreme Court’s Judgement

In September 2025, the Supreme Court Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice PB Varale examined the appeal. The Court noted that the first alleged act of harassment dated back to 2019 and the last in April 2023, when the Vice-Chancellor allegedly invited the professor to a resort and threatened her career.

The Court ruled that later events, such as her removal as Director and the financial inquiry, were administrative actions of the university and could not be treated as sexual harassment. It rejected the argument of a “continuing wrong,” holding that the April 2023 incident was complete in itself.

Since the complaint was filed in December 2023, well beyond the six-month limitation under the POSH Act, the Court dismissed the case. However, it made an unusual direction: while no action could follow, the allegations must remain permanently recorded in the Vice-Chancellor’s professional record. As the judges remarked, “It is advisable to forgive the wrongdoer, but not to forget the wrongdoing.”

Legality in Question

At the heart of the Supreme Court’s ruling lies a sharp tension between technical legality and substantive justice. The Court relied on Section 9 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, which prescribes a limitation period. Under this provision, an aggrieved woman must file her complaint within three months from the date of the incident, extendable by another three months if sufficient cause is shown.

Since the last alleged act of sexual harassment occurred in April 2023 and the complaint was filed in December 2023, the Court held it was beyond the permissible six-month window. On that count, the dismissal was consistent with the letter of the law.

Yet the decision raises unsettling questions. If the allegations were serious enough to warrant permanent entry into the Vice-Chancellor’s professional record, can it truly be said that justice was done? The law here acknowledges a wrong yet denies a remedy.

The rigidity of Section 9 is at the centre of this debate. Sexual harassment complaints are often delayed due to fear, stigma, or institutional pressures, making survivors hesitant to come forward immediately. A strict limitation rule, while legally sound, risks silencing victims and protecting those in positions of power.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the NUJS case sits uneasily at the crossroads of law and justice. By invoking limitation, the Court adhered to the letter of the POSH Act, but its unusual directive to permanently record the allegations leaves both sides shortchanged. From the Vice-Chancellor’s perspective, he is branded without the chance of a fair inquiry. From the complainant’s perspective, the recognition of wrongdoing is hollow, offering only symbolism without remedy. The decision highlights the urgent need to rethink rigid limitation rules under the POSH Act so that survivors are not silenced by procedural barriers, and accused persons are not condemned without due process. Justice cannot thrive in half measures — it must be both fair in law and meaningful in substance.