In addition to the direct pain it causes, workplace harassment is still one of the most harmful injustices in the workplace because of the way that victims’ suffering is frequently exacerbated by social stigma, institutional inertia, and legal technicalities.Inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, whether verbal, non-verbal, physical, or psychological, frequently of a sexual nature, that undermines dignity, fosters a hostile environment, or impacts job circumstances.The harm caused by workplace harassment is not immediate; victims’ jobs are ruined, their mental health deteriorates, and they are frequently left in a state of uncertainty due to tardy, incomplete, or (as in recent incidents) nonexistent justice.

The NUJS Case: What Happened, What the SC Did, and Why It Is Problematic?

The recent Supreme Court ruling in Vaneeta Patnaik vs. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti & Ors.,^[1] which included the Vice Chancellor (VC) of NUJS (National University of Juridical Sciences), Kolkata, is a particularly striking illustration of this dynamic.  Serious claims of sexual harassment were made in that instance, but the complaint was rejected since it was filed after the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act’s) statute of limitations had passed.  The Court issued an extraordinary directive: the judgement must be permanently put in the VC’s CV, even if it refused to permit an examination into the merits for that reason.  This choice “forgiven but not forgotten”raises grave worries as well as promise.This raises the question of whether the judiciary’s aim is to administer justice or to evade it by citing statutes of limitations, thereby offering mere condolences instead of true justice; this remains a matter of contention.

In this matter a faculty member claimed that the VC of NUJS had harassed her, delayed her advancements, and fostered a hostile work environment by regularly making unwanted advances (dinner proposals, sexual favour demands, and threats when she refused).  In April 2023, the most recent instance of direct harassment was reported.  She complained to the Local Complaints Committee (LCC) in December 2023. LCC rejected it as time-barred (i.e., beyond the limitation period under POSH).^[2] The High Court first permitted a rehearing, but a Division Bench later overturned that decision, holding that subsequent administrative actions (removal from position, etc.) were not personal acts by the VC but rather collective decisions of the Executive Council, hence not sufficient to keep the limitation period alive.

What SC’s Unique directive was?

Despite dismissing the case, the SC ordered that the judgement containing the charges be included in the VC’s professional résumé. This effectively means that the record of wrongdoing cannot be removed simply because there is no redress due to delay.  According to Justices Prasanna B. Varale and Pankaj Mithal:

It is advisable to forgive the wrongdoer, but not to forget the wrongdoing. The wrong which has been committed against the appellant may not be investigated on technical grounds, but it must not be forgotten^[3]

What does it leave unresolved?

Delays in harassment claims are frequently caused by social pressure, fear, stigma, and the possibility of retaliation rather than whims.  These actual human barriers are not often taken into consideration by the strict time frame under POSH.  It takes a while for many victims to find their voice.  The NUJS VC case demonstrates how technicalities prevent remedy for a serious alleged pattern of harassment (2019–2023).

Furthermore, the fact that the victim has not received justice and that similar crimes will not be decreased will not be altered by merely adding such points to a VC’s resume at the age of 50 or 60. However, if we consider the facts, it won’t matter because the VC is already doing well in his profession, even though the court’s ruling criticised him but gave him attention.The Court’s directive (though better than silence) might become a shield if no further consequences follow.

The function of institutional leadership is another issue that has not been settled.  The Chancellor of NUJS is B.R. Gavai, the Chief Justice of India.  He has the power to guarantee institutional accountability and integrity in his capacity as chancellor.  The Chancellor can hold the institution’s leader to greater ethical standards in the face of such grave accusations, even if the court has concluded the case procedurally.  To rebuild confidence, safeguard the university’s reputation, and make it abundantly evident that those in positions of authority cannot avoid consequences due to formalities, he can request the Vice Chancellor to retire or offer his resignation.  Taking such a move would demonstrate a commitment to meaningful responsibility and go beyond symbolic justice.

Haunting the wrongdoer forever, is that enough?

Although the expression is poignant, what does “haunt” actually mean?  The haunting might be dismissed in most professional circles as a footnote in the absence of real accountability. Likewise in this case the Court went so far as to state that “it is advisable to forgive the wrongdoer, but not to forget the wrongdoing” if the accusations were so serious.  It’s important to remember that there was an urgent need for action, even though the wrong that was done to the appellant may not be technically investigated.  Rather than restricting its action to symbolic censure, the Court may have mandated a new investigation into the situation. This would have prevented the perception that the legal system itself protects influential people behind procedural barriers and guaranteed accountability in both words and deeds.

The continuous demonstrations against the VC in NUJS serve as a reminder that public opinion is already serving as a sanction and that, in situations when legal or procedural remedies are insufficient, society and academic communities frequently intervene to enforce accountability. Despite having legal protection, history demonstrates that persistent student and faculty protests have forced senior administrators and vice chancellors to retire in a number of universities, demonstrating that moral and group pressure may prevail where formal law is ineffective.

Broader Implications and Needed Reforms

The Supreme Court itself has acknowledged that the POSH Act has not achieved its intended purpose. In Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa^[4] (2023), the Court observed:

“It is disquieting to note that even after such a long passage of time since the enactment of the POSH Act, its working has not been satisfactory. If the working of such an important legislation is not satisfactory, it is a matter of serious concern”

This recognition from the highest court shows how the Act, despite its strong framework on paper, is unable to fully meet its desired outcomes.

Furthermore, safe channels, retaliation protection, counselling, anonymous or confidential complaint procedures, and increased rights awareness are all necessary for victims.  Safe work cultures must be actively enforced by institutions.  In addition to symbolic measures (resume entries), there should be enforceable sanctions, leadership monitoring, and clear investigative procedures to hold those in authority to greater standards. The time constraints under the POSH Act ought to be re-examined; they might be made more accommodating to the reality of stigma and fear.The courts’ continued differentiation in NUJS between “personal harassment by VC” and “administrative action by a council” demonstrates how readily institutions can avoid accountability.  Laws ought to specify the types of institutional or follow-on administrative behaviour that are deemed related to harassment.

Conclusion

Legal protections for workplace harassment in India have both strengths and limitations, as demonstrated by the NUJS case.  On the one hand, the Supreme Court’s rare decision to preserve the malfeasance in the public domain is a symbolic act that is desperately needed; it forbids powerful wrongdoers from erasing accusations by using legal technicalities.  On the other hand, despite its symbolic value, it highlights the number of victims who are left defenceless when societal stigma, institutional lethargy, and legal time constraints work together to prevent actual justice.  Delaying justice can result in it being denied.  Symbolic justice, however, runs the risk of being nothing at all.If society, law, and institutions do not evolve to understand that harassment is not a discrete event, but often a long, insidious process, then cases like NUJS will continue to haunt victims far more than wrongdoers.

^[1]  Vaneeta Patnaik vs. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti & Ors., 2025 INSC 1106

^[2] Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

^[3] Vaneeta Patnaik vs. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti & Ors., 2025 INSC 1106 [32]

^[4] Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa.,2023