By Anuradha Gandhi and Isha Sharma
Introduction
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 commonly known as the POSH Act provides a statutory framework for addressing complaints pertaining to sexual harassment at workplace. While the legislation is intended to provide an effective mechanism for redressal, complaints under the Act must also satisfy the procedural requirements prescribed by the statute.
In a recent decision, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has examined the interplay between the statutory limitation period under Section 9 of the POSH Act and a complainant’s apprehension of facing sexual harassment in the future. The decision examines an important question:
“Can an apprehension that sexual harassment may occur again in the future could itself constitute an incident of sexual harassment and consequently extend the period for filing a complaint?
The Division Bench of Hon’ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas in the case State of West Bengal and Ors. V. LM and Ors. Vide judgment dated August 31, 2026[1] held it could not.
The decision emphasized that mere apprehension that sexual harassment may occur in the future cannot, by itself, constitute a fresh incident of sexual harassment for the purpose of extending the limitation period under the POSH Act. [2]
Facts of the Case
The proceedings arose from a complaint made by a contractual Data Entry Operation working with the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), West Bengal, against a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP).
According to the complainant, the respondent had, on numerous occasions between September 2021 to July 2022, touched or stroked her back and waist inappropriately. The complainant stated that she had remained silent about the alleged conduct because of fear and compelling circumstances.
Subsequently, she was posted under DSP, SOG and Homicide Section. However, after the DSP returned from leave, she saw him again at the CID office. This caused her to apprehend that she might once again be posted under him and subjected to similar conduct.
Accordingly, the complaint was filed by her on January 05, 2023 whereas the last alleged incident of sexual harassment was stated to have occurred in July 2022. The Internal Committee proceeded with the matter and its report dated April 13, 2023 found the allegations to be true and thus recommended departmental action against the DSP for misconduct as per service rules.
Aggrieved by the same, the Respondent/DSP challenged the report before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, which set aside the IC Report on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation.
The State thereafter challenged the Tribunal’s decision before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court.
Issues Before the Calcutta High Court
The question for consideration was whether the Complainant’s apprehension of being subjected to sexual harassment again could constitute a subsequent incident for the purpose of Section 9 of the POSH Act.
Understanding Key Provisions of the POSH Act
-
Section 9 of the POSH Act
Section 9 of the POSH Act provides that an aggrieved woman may make a complaint to the IC within a period of three months from the date of the incident. Where there are a series of incidents, the period is reckoned from the date of the last incident. [3]The statute also permits the IC to extend the period by an additional period of up to three months, where it is satisfied that circumstances prevented the woman from filing the complaint within the prescribed period, provided reasons for the extension are recorded in writing.
-
Section 2(n) and Section 3(2) of the POSH Act
The Court also examined Sections 2(n) and Section 3(2) read with Section 9 of the POSH Act.Section 2(n) defines ‘sexual harassment’ to include any one or more of the following unwelcome acts or behavior (whether directly or by implication) namely:[4]
- Physical contact and advances; or
- A demand or request for sexual favours; or
- Making sexually colored remarks; or
- Showing pornography; or
- Any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature.
Section 3(2) further contemplates circumstances among other circumstances, if occurring or present in relation to or connected with any Act or behaviour of sexual harassment will amount to sexual harassment[5]:
- implied or explicit promise of preferential treatment in her employment; or
- implied or explicit threat of detrimental treatment in her employment; or
- implied or explicit threat about her present or future employment status; or
- interference with her work or creating an intimidating or offensive or hostile work environment for her, or
- humiliating treatment likely to affect her health or safety.
Findings of the Court
The court observed that the statutory scheme contemplates an act, conduct or behaviour as per Section 2(n) and Section 3(2), to constitute a sexual harassment and the circumstances under which such act, conduct or behaviour may amount to sexual harassment for the purpose of making a complaint under the POSH Act.
“The Act does not mention or contemplate a sexual harassment based on apprehension of sexual harassment in the mind of a complainant to constitute sexual harassment for the purposes of making a complaint under the Act”
“Such complaint has to be made within three months from the last incident of sexual harassment, which in this case was in July 2022. A plain reading of the complaint in this case leaves no ambiguity that the same does not disclose any incident of sexual harassment after July 2022. The complaint merely disclosed apprehension in the mind of the complainant which induced fright leading her to lodging of the complaint. In absence of any incident of sexual harassment within three months’ period prior to lodging of the complaint, the same is barred by limitation under the Act,” the court observed.
The court found that the complaint did not disclose any incident of sexual harassment after July 2022 which may justify the making of a complaint in January 2023.
Thus, the complaint was held to be barred by limitation under Section 9 and the appeal was accordingly dismissed
Reliance on the Supreme Court Precedent
An important aspect of the judgment is the Court’s consideration of the Supreme Court’s ruling in X vs. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti (2025).
The State relied upon that decision to contend that a subsequent event could have implications for determining limitations.
However, the Calcutta High Court distinguished that case on facts.
In the concerned case, there was a subsequent, independent act- the complainant’s removal from employment-after the last alleged incident of sexual harassment. Therefore, the Supreme Court considered that subsequent event while examining the question of limitation.
In contrast, in the present case, the circumstances relied upon did not disclose a further act of sexual harassment. There was only an apprehension that sexual harassment might occur if the complainant were again placed under the Respondent.
Thus, the Court found that the Supreme Court precedent did not assist the State in treating the Complainant’s apprehension as a recurring or continuing incident.
This distinction is useful because it demonstrates that limitation cannot be extended simply by identifying any event occurring after the last alleged incident. The subsequent event must have legal relevance to the statutory scheme.
Conclusion
This ruling brings attention to two fundamental aspects of POSH law: the need to identify an actionable act or conduct of sexual harassment and the importance of complying with the statutory limitation period.
The decision does not eliminate the importance of a complainant’s concerns of fear. Rather, it draws a legal distinction between an apprehension of future conduct and an actual subsequent incident falling within the statutory definition of sexual harassment.