Колкатта высшая инстанция отменила отчет о домогательствах против заместителя начальника полиции из-за пропуска срока давности

- Home - / - High Courts - / - Calcutta High Court - / - Fear Of Future Harassment Cannot... Fear Of Future Harassment Cannot Extend POSH Act Limitation: Calcutta High Court Upholds Quashing Of ICC Report Against DSP Srinjoy Das 3 Sept 2026 6:05 PM IST The Calcutta High Court has upheld the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal's decision to set aside an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) report against a Deputy Superintendent of Police, holding that a complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, must be filed within three months of the last incident of sexual... This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers Subscribe Premium INR 1099+GST Your support helps us to bring you more content at an affordable subscription scheme !!! All payment options available The Calcutta High Court has upheld the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal's decision to set aside an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) report against a Deputy Superintendent of Police, holding that a complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, must be filed within three months of the last incident of sexual harassment. A Division Bench of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that the complainant's apprehension of facing harassment again, upon seeing the DSP at her workplace, did not constitute a fresh incident of sexual harassment for the purpose of computing limitation under Section 9 of the Act. The Bench was dealing with a writ petition filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the Tribunal's order dated June 19, 2025, in O.A. No. 450 of 2023, which had set aside the ICC report dated April 13, 2023. The complainant, a contractual Data Entry Operator posted at the CID, West Bengal, alleged that the DSP had touched or stroked her back and waist inappropriately on several occasions while she was working on a computer. According to her complaint, the alleged harassment occurred between September 2021 and July 2022. She stated that she had remained silent due to fear and because she had a small child at home. She further alleged that after being posted under another DSP, she saw the accused at the CID office three months later and became frightened at the prospect of being posted under him again and facing similar harassment. The complaint was lodged on January 5, 2023. The ICC subsequently found the allegations to be true and recommended departmental action against the DSP. The Tribunal, however, set aside the ICC report, holding that the complaint was barred by limitation. Appearing for the State, Advocate Guddu Singh argued that the Tribunal had overlooked the complainant's statement that she saw the DSP again in October 2022, three months after he resumed duty following leave. The State contended that the complaint filed in January 2023 was therefore within three months of the subsequent event. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in X v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti and a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Dr. Tapas Kumar Das v. Harish Chandra Research Institute & Ors. The State submitted that Section 9 of the POSH Act permits a complaint to be filed within three months of the last incident of sexual harassment, with a further extension of up to three months where the ICC is satisfied that circumstances prevented the complainant from filing within the prescribed period. The DSP's counsel, on the other hand, argued that the last alleged incident occurred in July 2022 and that the complaint filed in January 2023 was beyond the statutory limitation period. The Bench examined whether the complainant's statement about seeing the DSP again in October 2022 disclosed an incident of sexual harassment for the purpose of computing limitation. The Court referred to Section 2(n) of the POSH Act, which defines sexual harassment to include unwelcome physical contact and advances, demands for sexual favours, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography, or other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature. It also referred to Section 3(2), which identifies circumstances such as threats to employment, interference with work, or creation of an intimidating, offensive or hostile work environment. The Court observed that the Act contemplates an act or behaviour constituting sexual harassment, and the circumstances in which such conduct may amount to sexual harassment. “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 of a complaint under the Act,” the Bench held. The Court found that the complainant's statement disclosed only an apprehension that she might face harassment again if posted under the DSP. “A plain reading of the complaint extracted above leaves no ambiguity that the same does not disclose any incident of sexual harassment after July 2022,” the Court observed. The Bench held that the complaint had to be filed within three months from the last actual incident of sexual harassment, which was in July 2022. Since the complaint was lodged in January 2023, it was barred by limitation under Section 9 of the Act. The Court also considered the Supreme Court's decision in X v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, relied upon by the State. The Bench noted that in that case, the complaint disclosed a subsequent act of removal from employment after the last incident of sexual harassment. The Supreme Court had treated that removal as an independent event and held that the complaint was time-barred. The Calcutta High Court held that the facts of the present case were different, as the complainant's statement did not disclose any subsequent act of sexual harassment. The Court accordingly found no error in the Tribunal's order setting aside the ICC report as time-barred.