The Nexus of Section 2(n) & 3: Takeaways from Dr. Nirmal Kanti Chakraborti vs. Vaneeta Patnaik Judgement

The PoSH Act, 2013, also referred to as the Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, was enacted to protect women from workplace sexual harassment in India. Although the law serves as a broad framework; its stage of implementation, however, struggles with interpretative challenges. The recent case of Dr. Nirmal Kanti Chakraborti vs Vaneeta Patnaik & Ors, in 2024, provided better clarity on some of the important provisions of the PoSH Act.

This guide highlights how the court interpreted sections 2(n) and 3 by providing a nuanced understanding of what constitutes sexual harassment in workplace settings, the importance of timelines, and the role of the local complaints committee (LCC) and internal complaints committee/internal committee (ICC/IC).

The case was about an allegation of sexual harassment made by Vaneeta Patnaik, a teaching faculty member against Dr. Nirmal Kanti Chakraborti, VC of the National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS), Kolkata. The alleged incidents of sexual harassment occurred from September 2019 to April 2023. Vaneeta filed a complaint with the Local Complaints Committee (LCC) in December 2023.

The disputed question was essentially the decision of the LCC to adopt limitation as the reason to dispose of the complaint. The PoSH Act requires a complaint to be made within three months of the date of its last occurrence. Although an extension period of three months is allowed for reasons to be recorded in writing, the LCC found that the complaint, which was lodged in December 2023, was well beyond the prescribed period and the complainant had not provided a satisfactory reason for the delay.

Initially by a bench of the High Court, a direction to LCC to hear out the complaint on merit was passed, but the same was challenged by Dr. Chakraborti. The division bench of the Calcutta High Court consisting of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Prasenjit Biswas set aside the order of the single bench and restored the original order of the LCC, rejecting the complaint.

a. Section 2(n): The Core Definition of Sexual Harassment

The complete text of Section 2(n) reads:

“Sexual harassment includes any one or more of the following unwelcome acts or behavior (whether directly or by implication), namely:

1. physical contact and advances; or
2. a demand or request for sexual favours; or
3. making sexually coloured remarks; or
4. showing pornography; or
5. any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature”

b. Section 3: Prevention of Sexual Harassment

The full text of Section 3 states:

“(1) No woman shall be subjected to sexual harassment at any workplace.

(2) The following circumstances, among other circumstances, if it occurs or is present in relation to or connected with any act or behavior of sexual harassment may amount to sexual harassment:

1. implied or explicit promise of preferential treatment in her employment; or
2. implied or explicit threat of detrimental treatment in her employment; or
3. implied or explicit threat about her present or future employment status; or
4. interference with her work or creating an intimidating or offensive or hostile work environment for her; or
5. humiliating treatment likely to affect her health or safety.”

c. Section 9: Complaint of Sexual Harassment

Section 9 reads in full:

“(1) Any aggrieved woman may make, in writing, a complaint of sexual harassment at workplace to the Internal Committee if so constituted, or the Local Committee, in case it is not so constituted, within a period of three months from the date of incident and in case of a series of incidents, within a period of three months from the date of last incident:

Provided that where such complaint cannot be made in writing, the Presiding Officer or any Member of the Internal Committee or the Chairperson or any Member of the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the woman for making the complaint in writing:

Provided further that the Internal Committee or, as the case may be, the Local Committee may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the time limit not exceeding three months, if it is satisfied that the circumstances were such which prevented the woman from filing a complaint within the said period.

(2) Where the aggrieved woman is unable to make a complaint on account of her physical or mental incapacity or death or otherwise, her legal heir or such other person as may be prescribed may make a complaint under this section.”

The Calcutta High Court’s judgement notes, “The cumulative effect of Section 2(n) and Section 3 not only restricts the act of sexual harassment in the workplace to eventualities envisaged in Section 2(n), but any circumstances contemplated under Section 3(2) of the Act having nexus with the primary definition of sexual harassment are also included therein.”

Section 2(n) deliberately employs the word ‘includes’, making the definition of sexual harassment open-ended and able to cover both explicitly listed and similar unlisted forms of misconduct, as recognised by the Calcutta High Court’s judgement. Building on this, Section 3 expands the scope by specifying contextual circumstances which, when sufficiently connected (nexus) to acts defined in Section 2(n), may also constitute sexual harassment. This cumulative approach allows the act to flexibly address both clear and nuanced instances of workplace sexual harassment.

The timeline for filing complaints is set in Section 9, i.e., mandatorily within 3 months from the date of the incident. This defined period can be extended by another 3 months if the IC is satisfied that the delay was reasonable; however, this is the absolute outer limit. The Court strongly states that no complaints will be entertained after these 6 months, even in case of apparent hardship.

Section 9 also addresses a “series of incidents,” requiring that complaints in such cases be filed within three months of the last incident. However, a valid ‘series of incidents’ requires a coherent, connected pattern of conduct. The Court held that isolated acts separated by substantial time gaps cannot be artificially combined to circumvent the statutory time bar.

This strict adherence to limitation periods serves to preserve evidence quality, deliver procedural certainty to all parties involved, and encourage prompt reporting.

Important Note: In 2024, an amendment bill to PoSH Act was introduced which proposed to increase the time allowed for filing a complaint from three months to one year from the last incident. The bill has also proposed empowering ICC / LCCs to extend the time limit for filing a complaint for reasons to be recorded in writing beyond the aforesaid one year without any limitation, depending on the circumstances of each case. However, this bill awaits parliamentary approval.

a. For ICCs

The judgement provides clear guidance for the ICC.

1. When examining complaints:

• Identify a direct link between acts of sexual harassment under Section 2(n) and the circumstances listed under Section 3.
• Adhere to the timeline set under Section 9.
• Document explicit reasoning when considering extensions.

2. When evaluating “series of incidents”:

• Assess not just the occurrence but the pattern and nexus with Section 2(n).
• Examine the temporal connections of incidents.
• Investigate the links between different types of alleged sexual harassment.

b. For Employers

The judgment requires employers to take specific actions.

1. For Policy Framework:

• Clear documentation of time limits for complaints.
• Explicit procedures for requesting time extensions.
• Comprehensive definition of sexual harassment incorporating both Sections 2(n) and 3.

2. For Training and Awareness:

• Regular updates on legal developments.
• Clear communication about time limits.
• Training on recognising various forms of sexual harassment.

c. For Employees

The judgement needs employees to:

1. Understand their Rights:

• Recognition of various forms of sexual harassment.
• Awareness of strict time limits.
• Knowledge of the need to establish connections between incidents.

2. Understand the Requirement of Documentations:

• Contemporaneous recording of incidents.
• Preservation of evidence.
• Clear articulation of the nexus between different types of harassment.

The PoSH Act does not in fact limited to redressal; it is at heart, preventive, and as a preventive legislation, it can support and design the construct of creating a more constructive framework for an environment that is safe and respectful and inclusive at the workplace. By elucidating the relationship between the substantive definition and the surrounding scenario of sexual harassment, the judgment of the Calcutta high court adds to the strength of a rational approach to handling a complaint.

This highlights the need for the ICCs/ICs and employers to communicate and implement the law more accurately, and will also eventually lead to accountability and a culture of safety for women.

Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court’s detailed and nuanced judgement affirms a sophisticated, balanced approach, combining expansive protection with procedural certainty. The interpretative clarity regarding the relationship between the core definition and circumstantial expansions, coupled with the strict limitation framework, now provides a dependable roadmap for all PoSH stakeholders (employees (permanent, temporary, or contract), customers, vendors, partners, suppliers, and anyone else who interacts with the company in a professional capacity).

As workplaces continue to evolve across multiple dimensions, having effective laws that are well-interpreted keeps working environment safe and the society equitable at large.

Are you planning to strengthen your organisation’s approach to PoSH compliance? Complykaro can assist you in meeting your legal obligations. Contact us today for tailored PoSH training and compliance, ICC/IC trainings and employee awareness programmes.