Supreme Court Upholds Strict PoSH Complaint Time Limits, Introduces Direct Nexus Test in Patnaik Case

New Delhi, September 12, 2025: In a landmark judgement that is likely to shape PoSH (Prevention of Sexual Harassment) jurisprudence across India, the Supreme Court has upheld mandatory statutory timelines for filing sexual harassment complaints and introduced a new “Direct Nexus Test”. This test helps determine whether later administrative actions can be treated as extensions of past sexual harassment. While the Court had initially issued strong reputational directions against the respondent, but later withdrew them on review, bringing the focus back to remedies permitted under the PoSH Act. The ruling comes at a time when PoSH compliance is under intense national scrutiny, making the decision especially significant.

The dispute started when a complaint was filed by Vaneeta Patnaik against Dr. Nirmal Kanti Chakraborti, Vice Chancellor of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS), alleging that she was exposed to sexual harassment at the workplace between 2019 and April 2023. Though she claimed the hostility persisted informally, she filed a formal complaint only in December 2023, well beyond the statutory limitation period under the PoSH Act, 2013. The Local Complaints Committee (LCC) rejected her complaint as time-barred, applying the PoSH Act limitation period. A single judge of the High Court later revived the complaint, holding that the allegations amounted to a continuing wrong that justified condonation of delay. The Division Bench reversed this finding, reinstating the LCC’s decision and ruling that the complaint was barred by limitation. The matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court, which undertook a detailed review of the law governing delayed PoSH complaints.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed in the judgement that the limitation period according to Section 9 of the PoSH Act is mandatory and is not flexible. The Act prescribes a three-month window for filing a complaint from the date of the last incident, extendable by a maximum of three additional months if the complainant provides adequate and valid justification. The Court held that this six-month outer limit reflects legislative intent to ensure prompt reporting and fair inquiry. Consequently, complaints filed after this period may be rejected at the threshold without proceeding to inquiry. This finding significantly restricts the discretion of ICCs and LCCs to entertain delayed complaints and reinforces the necessity of timely action by complainants.

A pivotal component of the Vaneeta Patnaik judgement is the introduction of the Direct Nexus Test, which determines whether subsequent administrative measures, such as transfers, non-renewal of contracts, or changes in reporting structure, can be treated as part of continuing sexual harassment. The Court made it clear that unless there is a demonstrable causal connection between the alleged sexual harassment and the later adverse action, such measures cannot revive or extend the limitation period. Applying this test to the Dr. Nirmal Kanti Chakraborti vs. Vaneeta Patnaik judgement, the Court ruled that her removal from administrative duties in 2023 did not arise from the sexual harassment allegations and thus could not form the basis of a continuing wrong claim.

In clarifying the distinction between a continuing wrong and a recurring wrong, the Court held that the alleged acts of sexual harassment ending in April 2023 constituted a completed wrong. Administrative decisions taken months later were separate events and not extensions of sexual harassment. Therefore, the later actions could not restart the limitation clock. This interpretation significantly narrows the ambit of “continuing sexual harassment” claims and provides clearer guidance for adjudicatory bodies reviewing delayed complaints.

In its original judgement, the Supreme Court also directed the respondent organisation to include the Court’s findings in the employee’s service records and CV, framing it as corrective moral accountability. However, on November 17, 2025, the Court revised its stance and withdrew paragraphs 33 and 34 of the judgement. The Court clarified that PoSH proceedings must remain within statutory boundaries and that such reputational directives fall outside the Act’s intended remedies. This withdrawal underscores judicial restraint and reinforces that courts should avoid imposing penalties not contemplated under the PoSH framework.

Note that the strict limitation timelines upheld in this judgement apply only when the aggrieved woman files directly. Third-party complaints under Section 9(2) r/w Rule 6 face no time limit, per Allahabad HC in Vishwesh Dayal Shrivastava v. Union of India (2016(8) ADJ 597, paras 17–18).

Notably, this ruling comes at a critical juncture for workplace sexual harassment law in India. New mandatory PoSH disclosures introduced under the Companies (Accounts) Second Amendment Rules, 2025 now require companies to report detailed compliance data in annual financial statements, further increasing transparency as well as scrutiny. Alongside this, the Supreme Court has ordered district-wise PoSH compliance surveys to assess whether organisations have functional ICCs, trained members, and updated policies. There is also an ongoing national policy debate about extending PoSH protections to women advocates and independent professionals, groups that often work outside traditional employer-employee structures. These developments collectively underline the ruling’s importance within the wider national compliance landscape.

The judgement is an alert for complainants that delays in filing can be fatal to a case. The ruling stresses the necessity of documenting incidents at the same time and filing complaints promptly. It also limits reliance on the argument of a continuing hostile environment unless supported by concrete evidence. The decision therefore clarifies procedural expectations and underscores the importance of timely reporting to ensure effective sexual harassment redressal.

For employers and Internal Complaint Committees, the ruling emphasises the need for procedural rigour. ICCs must now strictly enforce limitation periods and apply the Direct Nexus Test during preliminary assessments. Clear documentation, robust training, and transparent inquiry processes become essential not just for compliance but for defensibility. The judgement aligns with the current regulatory emphasis on accountability and standardisation in PoSH governance.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling recalibrates the interpretation of limitation and continuing sexual harassment under the PoSH Act. By strengthening statutory discipline and clarifying the scope of judicial remedies, the judgement is poised to become a reference point for workplaces nationwide. Combined with emerging regulatory reforms, it signals a new phase of heightened compliance and clarity in India’s approach to workplace safety of women.

Complykaro delivers integrated PoSH training and compliance solutions, including PoSH audits, ICC training, and annual reporting support to apply the Direct Nexus Test effectively. Contact us for expert guidance on this landmark ruling.