Circumstances Not Relatable To Sexual Harassment: Calcutta HC Upholds Dismissal Of POSH Case Against NUJS Vice Chancellor

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the dismissal of sexual harassment case against the Vice Chancellor (VC) of National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS).

The Court was of the view that the circumstances contemplated under the Sexual Harassment on Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) were not related to the sexual harassment.

A Division Bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Prasenjit Biswas observed, “The plea taken by the respondent would have been accepted provided the circumstances contemplated under Section 3 of the POSH Act is related to or connected with the sexual harassment defined under Section 2 (n) of the said Act. As we do not find those circumstances relatable to the sexual harassment but unconnected with it for the reason that such decision were taken by an executive council collectively and not by the appellant alone; even if the appellant being one of the constituent of the executive council but the decisions are taken by the majority and looking upon the constitution of the executive council consisting of notable academicians and the jurists including the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court, it is improbable that the appellant would exert his position and would manipulate the decision taken by the executive council.”

Advocate Lakhi Kumar Gupta represented the Appellant while Advocate Pratik Dhar represented the Respondents.

In this case, a Complaint was filed by the Respondent before the Local Complaint Committee (LCC) against the Appellant i.e., VC of NUJS and the same was rejected on the ground of limitation. She challenged the decision of the said Committee by filing a Writ Petition, seeking reliefs. The Single Bench held that the plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and, therefore, should not be decided at the threshold without evidence. It was further observed that while deciding the issue of limitation, the Committee should restrict its scrutiny to the allegations made in the Complaint on its face value and should not have ventured to decide on the basis of the defense put forth by the Appellant.

The Writ Petition was allowed upon quashing and setting aside the Order passed by the Committee with further direction to conclude the proceeding on merit in accordance with the provisions contained in POSH Act. Thus the only issue involved in the Appeal before the High Court was whether the Local Complaint Committee was justified in rejecting the Complaint on the ground of limitation without taking into account the composite meaning of sexual harassment defined in Section 2(n) and the other following circumstances contemplated under Section 3 of the POSH Act.

The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “The question often come up before the Court whether the authority can extend the time beyond the outer cap set forth in the statutory provision, indefinitely. A distinction must be drawn between a statutory provision conferring right of the authority of the Court to condone the delay of whatever period and a statutory provision restricting the exercises of such power to extend the time up to a certain period.”

The Court added that in a former case, the Court can condone an inordinate delay on recording satisfaction that the litigant was prevented by sufficient cause in not approaching the authority of the forum within the normal period of limitation but in later case, though the discretion is conferred upon the authority to extend the time but not beyond the maximum limit provided in the statutory provision.

“It admits no ambiguity to the proposition that the plea of limitation are often considered to be a mixed question of fact and law as held in Urvashiben & Anr. (supra), Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. (supra) and P. V. Gururaj Reddy (supra) but such proposition of law is to be applied in the context of a given case and does not have the universal application. The issue of limitation may be purely an issue of law or sometimes the issue of mixed question of law and fact as held by one of us in Sri Debjyoti Bhattacharjee (supra)”, it noted.

The Court enunciated that the Court while considering the plea of limitation must read the pleadings in its entirety and in the event, it is found that it cannot be decided as an issue of law as it largely depends upon the facts so pleaded and the evidence in this regard to be produced, it should postpone the determination to the stage of final decision.

“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 or for argument sake if the period is extended. Therefore there is no infirmity in the decision of the LCC in dismissing the said complaint. The Single Bench has committed error in setting aside the order of the LCC without adverting to the proposition of law as discussed above”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned Order, and restored the decision of LCC.

Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Lakhi Kumar Gupta, Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Biswaroop Bhattacharya, Arijita Ghosh, and Ananya Ghosh.

Respondents: Advocates Pratik Dhar, Pappu Adhikari, Kollol Basu, Rohit Das, Suman Banerjee, Kishwar Rahman, Divya J. Tekriwal, Preetam Majumdar, and Sristi Roy.

Click here to read/download the Judgment