Calcutta High Court dismisses sexual harassment allegations against WBNUJS Vice Chancellor

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed the sexual harassment allegations against Nirmalkanti Chakraborty, the Vice Chancellor of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (WBNUJS), following a ruling by a Division Bench consisting of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Prosenjit Biswas. The bench overturned the decision of a single bench that had ordered an investigation into the accusations, ruling that the complaint was filed beyond the statutory time limit.

The case began in April 2023, when a female professor lodged a complaint with the university’s Local Complaints Committee (LCC), accusing Vice Chancellor Chakraborty of sexual harassment. The professor alleged that she had faced professional obstruction and threats from Chakraborty, which had caused delays in her filing the complaint. However, the LCC dismissed the complaint in December 2023, stating that the professor had filed the complaint long after the prescribed time limit of three months from the date of the alleged incidents, as stipulated by the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act.

After the LCC’s decision, the professor approached the Calcutta High Court. Justice Kaushik Chanda’s single bench annulled the LCC’s ruling, directing an investigation into the allegations. The professor’s legal team argued that Chakraborty’s actions had caused emotional and physical distress, which prevented her from filing the complaint within the legally required time frame. The professor’s counsel also claimed that the Vice Chancellor’s actions had intimidated her and obstructed her ability to report the harassment in a timely manner.

The Division Bench, upon hearing the appeal, rejected the single bench’s directive, stating that the complaint had been filed in December 2023, long after the three-month statutory period. The bench noted that the legal framework allows a complaint to be filed after the three-month period only if the committee is satisfied that the complainant was prevented from filing the complaint due to specific circumstances, such as intimidation or obstruction. The Division Bench concluded that the professor had failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the delay in filing the complaint.

The final ruling from the Division Bench effectively cleared Vice Chancellor Nirmalkanti Chakraborty of the allegations, and the matter was closed. The ruling highlighted the importance of adhering to the prescribed time limits for filing complaints under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act and clarified the conditions under which the time frame could be extended. The decision also reinforced the legal principle that complaints of sexual harassment must be filed within the designated period unless clear and justifiable reasons for delay are presented.