By Anuradha Gandhi and Isha Sharma<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
In a recent decision, the Hon\u2019ble Calcutta High Court has examined the interplay between the statutory limitation period under Section 9 of the POSH Act and a complainant\u2019s apprehension of facing sexual harassment in the future. The decision examines an important question:<\/p>\n
\u201cCan 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?<\/p>\n
The Division Bench of Hon\u2019ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Hon\u2019ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas in the case State of West Bengal and Ors. V. LM and Ors. Vide judgment dated August 31, 2026[1]<\/a><\/em><\/strong> held it could not.<\/p>\n 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]<\/a><\/p>\n 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).<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The State thereafter challenged the Tribunal\u2019s decision before the Hon\u2019ble Calcutta High Court.<\/p>\n The question for consideration was whether the Complainant\u2019s apprehension of being subjected to sexual harassment again could constitute a subsequent incident for the purpose of Section 9 of the POSH Act.<\/p>\n Understanding Key Provisions of the POSH Act<\/strong><\/p>\n Section 9 of the POSH Act<\/p>\n 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]<\/a>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.<\/li>\n Section 2(n) and Section 3(2) of the POSH Act<\/p>\n The Court also examined Sections 2(n) and Section 3(2) read with Section 9 of the POSH Act.Section 2(n) defines \u2018sexual harassment\u2019 to include any one or more of the following unwelcome acts or behavior (whether directly or by implication) namely:[4]<\/a><\/p>\n 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]<\/a>:<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201cThe 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\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cSuch 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\u2019 period prior to lodging of the complaint, the same is barred by limitation under the Act,\u201d<\/strong><\/em> the court observed.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Thus, the complaint was held to be barred by limitation under Section 9 and the appeal was accordingly dismissed<\/p>\n An important aspect of the judgment is the Court\u2019s consideration of the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling in X vs. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti (2025)<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n The State relied upon that decision to contend that a subsequent event could have implications for determining limitations.<\/p>\n However, the Calcutta High Court distinguished that case on facts.<\/p>\n In the concerned case, there was a subsequent, independent act- the complainant\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Thus, the Court found that the Supreme Court precedent did not assist the State in treating the Complainant\u2019s apprehension as a recurring or continuing incident.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The decision does not eliminate the importance of a complainant\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n [1] https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/175938835\/<\/a><\/p>\n [2] https:\/\/timesofindia.indiatimes.com\/city\/kolkata\/fear-of-sexual-harassment-not-enough-for-complaint-under-posh-act-cal-hc\/articleshow\/133769426.cms<\/a><\/p>\n [3] https:\/\/ssrana.in\/posh-law\/articles\/can-posh-complaints-be-filed-beyond-limitation-period-specified-under-the-posh-act\/<\/a><\/p>\nFacts of the Case<\/h2>\n
Issues Before the Calcutta High Court<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
Findings of the Court<\/h3>\n
Reliance on the Supreme Court Precedent<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h3>\n