**Supreme Court on PoSH Complaint Time Limits: Vaneeta Patnaik v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti (2025)**

The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark ruling on 12 September 2025, in Vaneeta Patnaik v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti & Ors., has provided significant clarity on the limitation period for filing complaints under the PoSH Act, 2013. While reiterating the statutory timelines under Section 9, the Court also introduced a novel approach to ensuring accountability when serious allegations cannot be adjudicated due to limitation.

Background of the Case

Complainant: Ms. Vaneeta Patnaik, a senior faculty member at NUJS, Kolkata.
Respondent: Prof. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, the Vice Chancellor of NUJS.

Ms. Patnaik alleged repeated acts of sexual harassment by the Vice Chancellor between 2019 and April 2023. However, her formal written complaint to the Local Complaints Committee (LCC) was filed only on 26 December 2023.

The LCC rejected the complaint as time-barred under Section 9 of the PoSH Act.

A Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court disagreed, observing that subsequent adverse acts by the VC (such as removing her from administrative posts) created a “hostile environment” that extended the limitation period.

However, the Division Bench of the High Court restored the LCC’s dismissal, holding the complaint was indeed out of time. The matter finally reached the Supreme Court.

The Legal Issue

Whether Ms. Patnaik’s complaint, filed nearly eight months after the last alleged overt act, could be treated as within limitation under Section 9 of the PoSH Act, 2013.

Section 9 of the PoSH Act – The Law on Limitation

Section 9(1) states:

A complaint must be filed within 3 months from the date of the incident.
If it is a “series of incidents,” then within 3 months from the date of the last incident.
The proviso allows an extension of another 3 months (maximum 6 months in total) if the committee is satisfied that the woman was prevented from filing earlier, and records reasons in writing.

Thus, the maximum statutory period = 6 months.

The Supreme Court’s Findings

1. Strict Limitation Period

The Court held that the time limits in Section 9 are mandatory and binding. Complaints filed beyond six months (without valid condonation) are not maintainable.

2. “Facially Time-Barred” Complaints

If a complaint itself shows it is filed after the limitation period, the LCC can dismiss it at the threshold, much like rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

3. Last Incident Must Be an Overt Sexual Act

The “last incident” for limitation purposes must be an act falling squarely within Section 2(n) of the Act (physical contact, demand for sexual favors, sexually colored remarks, etc.).
Later adverse administrative measures (e.g., transfer, removal from position, initiation of inquiry) cannot automatically extend limitation unless they are directly connected to the earlier sexual harassment.

4. Direct Nexus Test

The Court introduced a “direct nexus test”:

Only if subsequent hostile acts are in relation to or flowing from the sexual harassment can they be treated as part of a “series of incidents.”
In this case, the later decisions against Ms. Patnaik were collective and linked to other institutional complaints, not retaliation for sexual harassment. Hence, they did not extend the limitation.

5. Outcome

The Court held the last overt act occurred in April 2023.
The complaint in December 2023 was thus beyond six months and time-barred.
The Supreme Court upheld the rejection of the complaint.

6. Unique Direction

Even while dismissing the case on technical grounds, the Court issued an unusual direction:

Its judgment, including the allegations, must be permanently appended to the respondent’s service records and resume, so the allegations are never forgotten in public memory.

This is the first time the Supreme Court has imposed such a “reputational sanction” in a PoSH case.

Significance of the Judgment

Strict Timelines Reinforced – The ruling leaves no doubt that the six-month cap under Section 9 is the maximum permissible window.
Clarity on “Series of Incidents” – Only overt acts of sexual harassment (and directly connected retaliatory acts) can extend the limitation.
Threshold Scrutiny by LCC/ICC – Committees can summarily dismiss clearly time-barred complaints.
Continuing vs. Recurring Wrong – The Court clarified that harassment is not a “continuing wrong” unless overt acts persist.
Novel Accountability Mechanism – The reputational sanction opens a new debate in Indian jurisprudence, balancing strict legal procedure with moral consequences.

Practical Takeaways

For Employees: File complaints at the earliest. Do not wait beyond the statutory window.
For Employers/Committees:
- Record reasons if extending the 3-month limit (up to 6 months).
- Apply the direct nexus test before treating subsequent events as part of the harassment “series.”
For Practitioners: Advise clients clearly about the limitation and importance of documenting linkages between sexual harassment and later adverse acts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Vaneeta Patnaik v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti is a watershed moment in PoSH jurisprudence. It strictly enforces the time-bound nature of complaints under the Act while experimenting with moral sanctions to ensure allegations are not erased from institutional memory.

For professionals and organizations, the judgment is a timely reminder: compliance with procedural timelines is not optional.

Board HR

Search This Blog