Justice on a clock: Rethinking limitation under PoSH

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (act), commonly known as the PoSH (Prevention of Sexual Harassment) Act, is a landmark legislation to ensure safer workplaces for women. However, a contentious issue under the act is the period of limitation for filing a complaint.

An aggrieved woman must file a complaint in writing within three months from the date of the incident. In the case of a series of incidents, the complaint must be filed within three months from the date of the last incident. Further, the act allows for extension of time, however, the internal committee (IC) or local committee (LC) may extend the time limit for filing complaints by only up to three months if the IC or the LC is satisfied that the circumstances prevented the woman from making the complaint within the initial allowable period, thereby making the maximum period of filing the complaint six months.

This statutory limitation has been interpreted strictly by Indian courts. The Calcutta High Court in Nirmal Kranti Chakraborti v Vaneeta Patnaik and Ors, held that once an outer limit to raise a complaint is prescribed, even in deserving cases, the discretion of the IC or the court is limited to that set out in the act. Courts have held that while the IC or LC have the power to allow an extension, such a period cannot exceed three months. In another judgment, the Madras High Court disallowed a complaint filed after nine months, pointing to the absence of any explanation from the IC for accepting a complaint with such a delay.

Recently, however, there has been judicial recognition of the need for a more nuanced approach. In R Mohanakrishnan v The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range and Ors, the Madras High Court adopted a more flexible approach. The court held that when serious allegations such as rape, or continuous molestation or harassment, are made, the actions involved will constitute continuing misconduct. Each day that passes until the situation is redressed or brought to the notice of the appropriate authority, will give rise to a fresh cause of action. However, the court held that in cases involving isolated incidents, such as passing lewd remarks or touching inappropriately, the victims in those cases are not permitted to delay their right of remedy for an extended period, as this may compromise the fairness of the inquiry.

In 2024, an amendment bill was introduced in Rajya Sabha, the upper house of parliament, which proposed to increase the time allowed for filing a complaint from three months to one year. The bill also allowed ICs to extend the time to more than a year, depending on the circumstances of the case. However, this bill awaits parliamentary approval.

Given the nature of the offences and how such matters typically unfold in a workplace, strict interpretation of limitation raises concerns for victims. This is particularly so when considered in the context of how victims process their own experiences. Women often hesitate to come forward with complaints of sexual harassment because of the fear of secondary victimisation, current and future job prospects, particularly when the perpetrator is a senior employee, and the reputational impact she may experience by making the complaint. Such considerations may indeed lead to delay in reporting. However, a balance needs to be drawn since a longer period may put the respondent at a disadvantageous position as the evidence or witnesses may become unavailable or unreliable, due to which they may not be able to represent themselves effectively.

Ultimately, a law that is designed to empower women must also account for the challenges women experience. The law in its current form should be revisited. A balance has to be achieved between the interests of the complainant and the respondent’s right to defend themselves effectively. Although the existing legal framework should be more flexible in evaluating delayed reporting by complainants, organisations and their ICs must also consider the gravity of the offence alleged while making a determination on the issue of limitation.

Agrima Awasthi is a counsel and Shivanshu Sharma and Diksha Singh are associates at Wadhwa Law Offices