Apprehension of Future Harassment Does Not Constitute Incident Under Sexual Harassment Act; Complaint Must Be Filed Within Three Months of Last Incident
In a significant judgment dated August 31, 2026, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, comprising Justices Madhuresh Prasad and Prasenjit Biswas, dismissed the State of West Bengal’s appeal challenging the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal’s order that set aside an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) report on grounds of limitation under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
The case originated from a complaint filed by a contractual employee working as a Data Entry Operator in the CID office, West Bengal, alleging repeated sexual harassment by a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) between September 2021 and July 2022. The complainant claimed the DSP inappropriately touched her on several occasions but did not disclose any specific dates for these incidents. After July 2022, the complainant saw the DSP return to the office following a leave of absence and expressed apprehension that she might be reposted under him and subjected to similar harassment again. The complaint was lodged on January 5, 2023.
The ICC initially found the allegations to be true and recommended departmental action against the DSP. However, the DSP challenged this before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, which quashed the ICC report on the ground that the complaint was barred by the three-month limitation period prescribed under Section 9 of the 2013 Act.
The State challenged the Tribunal’s decision before the Calcutta High Court, arguing that the complaint was filed within the permissible period since the apprehension of future harassment occurred around October 2022, thus falling within three months before the complaint was lodged in January 2023. The State relied on judgments including the Supreme Court’s decision in X v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti (2025 SCC Online SC 1964) and the Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Dr. Tapas Kumar Das v. Harish Chandra Research Institute (2026 SCC Online All 4976) to support the argument that the limitation period could be extended in such circumstances.
The DSP’s counsel, conversely, argued that the limitation period must be counted from the last actual incident of harassment, which was July 2022, and since no specific harassment incident was disclosed after that date, the complaint filed in January 2023 was time-barred. The counsel emphasized the strict nature of limitation under the Act and the absence of any incident after July 2022.
The High Court thoroughly examined the statutory provisions, including the definitions of sexual harassment under Sections 2(n) and 3 of the Act. It held that “sexual harassment” requires an actual act or behavior as defined by the statute, such as physical contact, sexual advances, or creating a hostile work environment. The Court found that mere apprehension or fear of future harassment, without any concrete incident, does not amount to sexual harassment under the law.
The Court relied on the legislative intent and existing Supreme Court precedents to affirm that complaints must be filed within three months from the date of the last incident of harassment. The Court observed that the complainant’s fear upon seeing the DSP after July 2022 was an apprehension and did not qualify as an incident under the Act. Therefore, the complaint filed in January 2023 was beyond the limitation period and liable to be dismissed.
Consequently, the Calcutta High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order quashing the ICC report and dismissed the State’s writ petition. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the statutory limitation period under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, and clarifies that apprehension alone cannot be the basis for a complaint.
This judgment serves as a crucial precedent for workplace sexual harassment cases, emphasizing the need for timely filing of complaints and clarifying the scope of what constitutes sexual harassment under the statute.
Bottom Line:
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace - Complaint alleging sexual harassment must disclose an incident of harassment within the limitation period prescribed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. Mere apprehension of harassment does not qualify as an incident under the Act.
Statutory provision(s):
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 – Section 2(n), Section 3, Section 9
State of West Bengal v. Lala Mir, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2973052
