Vaneeta Patnaik vs Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1674

PANKAJ MITHAL, PRASANNA B. VARALE
Vaneeta Patnaik – Appellant
Versus
Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rishad Ahmed Chowdhury, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Madhavi Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Kant, AOR Mr. Ankush Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Kautilya Birat, Adv. Ms. Aandrita Deb, Adv. Ms. Rajnandini, Adv. Mr. Vishwadeep Chandrakar, Adv. Mr. Aayush Gupta, Adv. Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Varij Nayan Mishra, Adv. Mr. C. K. Rai, AOR Mr. Vinay Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sumit Panwar, Adv.

ORDER :

PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

1. Leave granted

2. Heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, senior counsel and Ms. Madhavi Divan, senior counsel, appearing for the appellant and the respondent no.1 respectively.

3. The appellant-Ms. Vaneeta Patnaik is a faculty member of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences¹[Hereinafter referred to as “NUJS” or “University”], Kolkata. Dr. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, respondent no.1 was appointed as a Vice Chancellor of NUJS on 03.07.2019

4. The appellant lodged a formal complaint on 26.12.2023 with the Local Complaint Committee²[Hereinafter referred to as “LCC”] alleging sexual harassment on part of respondent no.1. The LCC rejected the complaint as barred by time inasmuch as the last alleged incident of sexual harassment occurred in April 2023; whereas the complaint was filed on 26.12.2023 which was not only beyond the prescribed period of limitation of three months but also beyond the extendable period of limitation of six months.

5. The appellant, aggrieved by the rejection of her complaint, preferred a writ petition before the High Court. The single Judge of the High Court vide judgment and order dated 22.05.2024 quashed the order of the LCC and dire