Imagine a woman on the first day of the office arriving thirty minutes early with lots of enthusiasm and dreams for the future. But she was forced to have personal relationships, or manipulated to become a travel buddy in the exchange of position or promotion. This is what has happened in the case of Vaneeta Patnaik vs. West Bengal University of Juridical Sciences.
Here, the complainant is an associate professor and the accused is the Vice-Chancellor of the West Bengal University. The Vice-Chancellor created a hostile work environment for the complainant. She was tied in the circumstances so that she couldn’t even register the complaint before the local complaints committee. Findings by the High Court of Calcutta were upheld by the hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well it examined the scope of Section 9 of the POSH Act, 2013. This article analyzes the facts, legal position, reasoning adopted by the court, direct connection between the acts of the accused and the complaints of sexual harassment.
Factual Matrix
The appellant-Ms. Vaneeta Patnaik is a faculty member of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. Dr. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, respondent no.1 was appointed as a Vice-Chancellor of NUJS on 03.07.2019. Ms. Vaneeta filed a formal complaint against the Vice -Chancellor on 26.12.2023. She alleged sexual harassment by the Vice-Chancellor. As per her complaint the last incidence of harassment occurred in April 2023. This time was barred by the limitation of three months as well as six months of extension of the limitation period. The Local Complaints Committee(LCC) rejected the complaint on the grounds of being barred by the limitation period.
Now Ms. Vaneeta moved to High Court of Calcutta and filed a writ petition after being aggrieved by the rejection of the complaint. The High Court quashed the order of LCC and directed for the rehearing of the matter. The High Court reasoned that the Vice Chancellor created an environment full of intimidation, hostility, and offensive behaviour, so the complaint is within the limitation period.
Now the matter further moved from the Single Bench to the Division Bench. The Division Bench observed that after the complainant showed disregard towards the sexual harassment, she started facing hostile and offensive administrative actions. This observation made the division bench of the High Court to see that these offensive or hostile actions are really connected with the vice chancellor?
The Division Bench held that administrative actions taken against the appellant after April 2023 were collective decisions of the Executive Council, consisting of eminent academicians, jurists and even Supreme Court Judges and were not just personal actions of the Vice-Chancellor. It was improbable for the Vice-Chancellor to have prevailed over the decision of the Executive Council, exerting his pressure. So the hostile environment created for her was not by the Vice-Chancellor alone, it was by the Executive Council of NUJS. Hence, the LCC was right in rejecting the complaint.
Now the matter came to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by way of Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India by the appellant, Ms. Vaneeta Patnaik.
Meaning and Scope of Sexual Harassment
The term “Sexual Harassment” is defined under Section 2(n) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, ( POSH Act, 2013) it includes any one or more of the unwelcome act or behaviour (whether directly or by implication) such as physical contact and advances; or a demand or request for sexual favours; or making sexually coloured remarks; or showing pornography; or any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature.
Section 3 of the POSH Act, 2013, provides for prevention of sexual harassment at any workplace. This section provides the scope, circumstances, acts, and behaviours that amounts to sexual harassment. The following circumstances, among other circumstances, if it occurs, or is present in relation to or connected with any act or behavior of sexual harassment may amount to sexual harassment These are as follows:
(i) implied or explicit promise of preferential treatment in her employment; or
(ii) implied or explicit threat of detrimental treatment in her employment ; or
(iii) implied or explicit threat about her present or future employment status; or
(iv) interference with her work or creating an intimidating or offensive or hostile work environment for her; or
(v) humiliating treatment likely to affect her health or safety.
Section 9 of the POSH Act, 2013, says that any woman who has suffered sexual harassment at the workplace may file a complaint in writing to the local committee within three months from the date of the last incident. As per second proviso if the local committee has reasonable prevailing substances that stopped the woman from filing the complaint within three months, then the committee will record the reasons in writing for such circumstances and allow the extension of the period beyond the three months.
Issue
Whether the Division Bench of the High Court is justified in non-suiting the appellant on the ground that her complaint was barred by limitation.
Deciding on Limitation Period
Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding the limitation period, considered the averments made in the complaint. Without collecting the material on the events it’s not good to throw the case away. Dr. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, joined the University as the Vice-Chancellor in July 2019. In September 2019, he insisted that she should accompany him for dinner, which would greatly benefit her personally. He even touched her hand in a manner that made her extremely uncomfortable, whereupon, she left his office quietly. Again in October 2019 he called upon the appellant but she denied by saying that she wanted to keep the relationship professional only. But he didn’t stop there, he asked for sexual favour from her, and if she says no, then she may face anything. Her promotion was also put on hold for two and a half years. Later in 2022 her promotion was cleared.
In April 2023, the Vice-Chancellor called the faculty once again for a trip to a resort which she refused flatly. Then he threatened her by saying “your career will suffer badly.” On 29.08.2023, the faculty received a letter from the Vice-Chancellor removing her as Director, Centre of Financial, Regulatory and Governance Studies, which was her designation that time.She was removed from the post of Director, CFRGS or that a preliminary inquiry was instituted against her by the Executive Council. The actions taken against the appellant in August 2023, are administrative in nature and does not create a gender based hostile environment, and hence, fall short of being actions amounting to acts of sexual harassment. Hence, the last date of sexual harassment was April 2023 not August 2023.
Interpretation of the Expressions “in relation to” or “connected with” used in Section 3(2) of the POSH Act, 2013
Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the requirement of direct nexus between the acts and behaviours done by the accused and the complaint of sexual harassment. The hon’ble Supreme Court said that the expressions “in relation to” or “connected with” indicates that there must be a direct and clear connection between the alleged sexual harassment and the act or behaviour done by the accused. Later events of Augustv 2023, and December 2023 has almost no relation with the sexual harassment done at April 2023 as those decisions were done by the executive council.
Further, hon’ble court went on to explain the connection by way of distinguishing between “continuing wrong” and a “recurring wrong”. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court highlighted Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh (2008). A continuing wrong is a single wrongful act which causes a continuous injury. Recurring wrongs are those which occur periodically, and they create a different injury and different cause of action.
Final Verdict in Vaneeta Patnaik Case
Hon’ble Supreme Court recognized the wrong faced by the faculty but still dismissed the complaint by observing, “the incidents of alleged sexual harassment on part of Respondent No.1 may be forgiven but allowed to haunt the wrongdoer forever”. With this Court essentially said that the allegations of sexual harassment at workplace are serious and have moral backing.Even if the victim forgive the incident still the wrongdoing itself does not become acceptable or become undone. But the case lacks the technicalities of the POSH Act, 2013, regarding the period of limitation. Hence, dismissed with the observations.
Key Takeaways from Landmark POSH Judgment
Following are the key takeaways from this judgement:
- Every workplace dispute or any administrative action may jot be in direct nexus with the complaint of the sexual harassment.
- If a woman employee get a threat from someone at teh workplace after she flatly refused to participate in the sexual act, it must establish a clear connection between the threat of sexual harassment or sexual advance with the following acts of hostility at teh workplace.
- The judgment also made it clear the distinction of “continuing wrong” and “recurring wrong” to determine the limitation period under the POSH Act, 2013.
- There should be a strict adherence to the period of limitation as per the Section 9 of the POSH Act, 2013.
Also read
