The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that complaints of sexual harassment at the workplace under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) cannot be rejected solely on the ground of delay without first examining the reasons behind such delay.

Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery made the observation while setting aside disciplinary proceedings initiated against an Associate Professor of Astrophysics at the Harish Chandra Research Institute (HCRI), Prayagraj, and remitting the matter back to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) for a fresh inquiry.

The case arose from multiple sexual harassment complaints filed by former female PhD scholars who had worked under the professor. Following an inquiry, the ICC found the professor guilty and imposed penalties, including censure and a prohibition on supervising female PhD students or research assistants.

Challenging the action before the High Court, the professor argued that the complaints had been filed beyond the three-month limitation period prescribed under the POSH Act. He also contended that copies of complaints and witness statements were not supplied to him, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

The Court noted that the ICC's report did not indicate whether relevant documents and statements had been provided to the professor. It further observed that there was no discussion regarding any request for cross-examination made by him. As a result, the Court held that the inquiry had not been conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the POSH Act.

Importantly, the Court emphasized that delayed complaints should not automatically be discarded. Referring to earlier Supreme Court observations, the High Court noted that victims of workplace sexual harassment often hesitate to report incidents immediately, particularly when the alleged perpetrator occupies a position of authority that could affect their academic or professional future.

The Court held that before rejecting a complaint on grounds of delay, the ICC must specifically consider the period of delay, the date of filing of the complaint, and the reasons furnished by the complainants for approaching the committee at a later stage.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Internal Complaints Committee to conduct a fresh inquiry and determine whether the complaints deserve consideration after examining the issue of delay and the explanations offered by the complainants.

The ruling reinforces the objective of the POSH Act by ensuring that procedural limitations do not become a barrier to genuine complaints of workplace sexual harassment.

Case Title: Dr. Tapas Kumar Das v. Harish Chandra Research Institute & Ors