Calcutta High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner, an Associate Professor at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata challenging an order dated 05-03-2024, passed by the local committee, 24-Parganas (North), constituted under the (POSH Act) dismissing the petitioner’s complaint on the grounds of limitation. Kausik Chanda., J., sets aside the impugned order being unsustainable and directed the local committee to conclude the proceedings initiated on the complaint filed by the petitioner on merit in accordance with the provisions of .
The petitioner filed her complaint on 26-12-2023, alleging a series of incidents of sexual harassment by respondent 7, spanning from September 2019 to April 2023. The local committee acknowledged the complaint and issued a notice to respondent 7, who denied the allegations. Later, on 05-03-2024, the petitioner applied for condonation of delay in filing the complaint. On the same day, the local committee rejected the complaint, citing the expiration of the statutory period for lodging such complaints under Section 9(1) of the Act of 2013.
Counsel for petitioner argued that the committee misinterpreted the complaint and incorrectly applied the limitation provisions, failing to consider the broader definition of “sexual harassment” under Section of . They contended that the petitioner’s experiences, including threats of detrimental treatment and a hostile work environment, fell within the ambit of sexual harassment. Conversely, the university’s advocate defended the committee’s decision, asserting that no incidents of sexual harassment occurred post April 2023, thus nullifying any claims beyond the statutory limitation period. Respondent 7’s advocate emphasized that the petitioner’s delay in filing and her insufficient explanation for it justified the committee’s rejection.
The Court noted that the local committee had failed to consider the continuous nature of harassment alleged by the petitioner, which included a series of vindictive actions post April 2023. The Court examined the relevant statutory provisions, particularly the definitions of “sexual harassment” in Sections 2
and 3(2) of the Act of 2013, and the complaint filing timelines in Section 9(1). The court found that the local committee’s rigid interpretation overlooked the cumulative and interrelated nature of the harassment incidents.The Court held that the incidents from April 2023 to December 2023, though not explicitly sexual in nature, were related to and stemmed from earlier sexual harassment, thereby falling within the statutory definition. Therefore, the local committee erred in dismissing the complaint without a full examination.
Thus, the Court set aside the local committee’s order dated 05-03-2024 and directed it to reconsider the complaint on its merits in accordance with the provisions of . The writ petition was allowed, emphasizing that procedural technicalities should not overshadow the substantive rights of individuals seeking justice under protective statutes like .
[X v State of WB, W.P.A. No.10583 of 2024, decided on 22-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Mr. Kallol Bose, Adv., Mr. Rohit Das, Adv., Ms. Kishwar Rahman, Adv., Ms. Sristi Roy, Adv., Ms. Divya J. Tekriwal, Adv., Mr. Rishav Mazumder, Adv.
For the State: Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Adv., Mr. Ritesh Kr. Ganguly, Adv.
For NUJS: Mr. Soumya Majumder, Adv., Ms. Sanjukta Dutta, Adv., Mr. Kinnor Ghosh, Adv.
For respondent no. 7: Mr. Avik Ghatak, Adv., Mr. Abhinav Rakshit, Adv
The post appeared first on .