SC draws a line on limitation, and a permanent line on the VC’s resume

New Delhi: It is advisable to forgive the wrongdoer but not to forget the wrongdoing, the Supreme Court has said while directing that its verdict with details of alleged sexual harassment by a vice-chancellor of a university be made part of his resume so that it "haunts" him forever, after the complaint against him was time-barred.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale passed the order on Friday on a plea by a faculty member of a West Bengal-based university who had lodged the complaint in December 2023 alleging sexual harassment by the VC.

The apex court said the Calcutta High Court's division bench had committed no error of law in restoring the decision of the local complaint committee (LCC) that the appellant's complaint was time-barred and was liable to be dismissed.

"It is advisable to forgive the wrongdoer, but not to forget the wrongdoing. The wrong which has been committed against the appellant (faculty member) may not be investigated on technical grounds, but it must not be forgotten," the bench said.

"In this view of the matter, we direct that the incidents of alleged sexual harassment on part of respondent no.1 (VC) may be forgiven but allowed to haunt the wrongdoer forever. Thus, it is directed that this judgment shall be made part of the resume of respondent no.1, compliance of which shall be strictly ensured by him personally," it said, while dismissing the appeal against the high court's order.

The apex court noted the appellant had lodged a formal complaint in December 2023 with the LCC alleging sexual harassment by the VC.

It noted the LCC rejected the complaint as barred by time in as much as the last alleged incident of sexual harassment occurred in April 2023, whereas the complaint was filed on December 26, 2023, which was not only beyond the prescribed period of limitation of three months but also beyond the extendable period of limitation of six months.

Aggrieved by the rejection of her complaint, the appellant approached the high court.

A single judge of the high court in May 2024 quashed the LCC's order and directed the rehearing of the complaint on merit.

Later, a writ appeal was taken up by the high court's division bench that allowed it in December 2024.

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 apex court judges and were not just personal actions of the VC.

Referring to the averments made in the complaint, the apex court noted that it had alleged that the VC called the appellant in his office in September 2019 and insisted that she should accompany him for dinner, "which would greatly benefit her personally".

It noted that the complaint further claimed that the appellant told him that she was not comfortable and wanted to keep the relationship professional only.

It said as per the complaint, the VC "demanded sexual favour from her and threatened her if the offers are declined".

"A plain reading of the entire complaint would reveal that the sexual harassment, if any, of the appellant at the hands of respondent no.1 (VC) commenced sometime in September 2019, and the last incident in that connection took place in April 2023," the bench said.

It said the complaint of appellant from the last incident of sexual harassment of April 2023 was "certainly beyond time".

The bench said the incident of removal of appellant from a post in August 2023 cannot be attributed as an act of sexual harassment in connection with the previous incidents.

"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," it said.