DR. TAPAS KUMAR DASversusHARISH CHANDRA RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND 3 OTHERS

                                                                         AFR
                                                      Reserved on 04.05.2026
                                                      Delivered on 07.05.2026

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD


                      WRIT - A No. - 12736 of 2018

Dr. Tapas Kumar Das                                          …..Petitioner(s)


                                             Versus
Harish Chandra Research Institute And                      …..Respondents(s)
3 Others



Counsel for Petitioners(s)          : Badal Chatterjee, Chandan Sharma,
                                      Roshni Shukla, Sri P.N. Saksena, Sr.
                                      Advocate, Vishakha Pande
Counsel for Respondent(s)           : Udai Chandani, Rahul Agarwal



Court No. - 32

           HON’BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1.    Petitioner, an Associate Professor-G of Astrophysics, is working at
a premier Institute engaged in research in Mathematics and Theoretical
Physics, namely, Harish Chandra Research Institute, Allahabad
(hereinafter referred to as “HCRI, Allahabad”).

2.    Petitioner has claimed himself to be an internationally reputed
Scientist of Astrophysics, an expert in the subject of Black Hole and
Analogue Gravity and has published more than sixty research papers in
intentionally reputed scientific journals.
                                    2
                                                   Writ A No. 12736 of 2018

3.    Petitioner has faced an inquiry initiated by Internal Complaints
Committee (hereinafter referred to as “ICC”) of HCRI, Allahabad
constituted under Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace
(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred
to as “POSH Act”) as there were multiple complaints filed by girl
students who have studied under the petitioner for purpose of Ph.D.

4.    ICC initiated inquiry and sought petitioner’s response on
complaints. According to record during proceedings some more
complaints were also received against petitioner. The complaints were
with regard to sexual harassment at workplace by petitioner, which
includes physical contacts and advances and making sexually coloured
remarks also.

5.    Petitioner has asked various documents including copy of
complaints and also asked for oral examination as well as cross-
examination of complainants, however, it appears that during
proceedings statements of victims/ complainants were even not recorded
and considering gravity of the complaints, ignoring time period provided
under Section 9 of POSH Act to take cognizance of complaints, inquiry
was concluded and petitioner was found guilty.

6.    For reference “Summary and Recommendations” of ICC are
reproduced hereinafter:

                     “Summary and Recommendations
      The Women Grievances’ Cell noted that:
          • As many as 10 women altogether have complained of
            sexual harassment and/or misconduct against Dr. Tapas K.
            Das and some of these complaints are backed-up with
            documentary proof or corroboration by other students.
          • At least 3 complaints are of a very serious nature. One of
            them has documentary evidence while both the others have
            corroboration from other students.
          • The women concerned are all very young and vulnerable,
            who could be easily manipulated, threatened and
            intimidated and who had many reasons to fear for their
            careers, and hence took time to complain against Dr. Das.
                                3
                                                Writ A No. 12736 of 2018

    • The incidents about which these women have complained
      spans a prolonged period of time between 2013 - 2016
      during which Dr. Das has been involved in harassing and
      misconduct, making Dr. Das a serial harasser and repeat
      offender.
    • Most of the incidents of serious nature happened within his
      closed-door office and at very late in the night.
    • In his meeting with the Women’s Grievances’ Cell, Dr. Das
      has admitted to have sent an email with a link to
      pornography/erotica to one of the complainants. Dr. Das
      later denied this in his written response. But since Dr. Das
      had admitted to sending this link in his meeting with the
      committee on July 20, 2016 and since he had himself given
      the name of the recipient to whom he sent this link, and
      since the name he mentioned in the July 20, 2016 meeting
      matched with the name of the complainant who alleges that
      he sent this link to her, the committee concludes that Dr.
      Das is lying in his written response.
Given the volume of complaints, seriousness of the nature of
complaints, and repeated misconduct by Dr. Das over a prolonged
period of time, the Women’s Grievances’ Cell feels that Dr. Tapas
K. Das is guilty of sexually harassing his female students/postdocs
over an extended period of time. The committee feels that even
though none of the incidents reported to the committee occurred in
the last 3-6 months as required by the Sexual Harassment of
Women in Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act
2013, the complaints, and more importantly, the number of
complaints, cannot be ignored. Since Dr. Tapas K. Das is seen
guilty of sexual harassment and mental harassment of young
women by using his position of power in the institute, the
committee recommends that appropriate disciplinary action be
taken against Dr. Das. Therefore, the committee recommends that
the service rule be found for appropriate punishment and
disciplinary action be taken against Dr. Das as per the rules of
HRI. In particular, the committee recommends that at the very
minimum the following actions be taken against Dr. Das:
1. The institute stop Dr. Tapas K. Das’ increment for one year. This
should show in his service book.
2. His promotion must be stopped until 2020.
3. Dr. Tapas K. Das be suspended for a period of 6 months and/or
an equivalent punishment given to him, as per HRI rules.
4. Dr. Tapas K. Das be forbidden from taking female students as
visiting students, PhD students or post-doctoral fellows.
                                       4
                                                       Writ A No. 12736 of 2018

      5. Dr. Tapas K. Das be removed from all institute committees
      which might bring him in contact with any young student. This
      includes the VSP committee.
      6. Dr. Taps K. Das be shifted to an office which is either open or
      even if closed has glass on all sides so that the inside of his office
      be clearly visible from outside.

      7. Dr. Tapas K. Das be required to go for gender sensitisation
      program.”
7.    The matter was thereafter put before Council of HCRI, Allahabad
and after considering petitioner’s response, punishment proposed by ICC
an order was passed whereby a punishment of ‘Censure’ and a direction
was passed that petitioner was barred to take any female students or
PDFs or RAs to work with him. For reference the decision of Council is
reproduced hereinafter:

      “(a) Sexual Harassment Case
      In continuance of the decision taken in the last GC meeting dated
      30-09-2016, the Director summarised the evidences considered by
      the committee (ICC) and Prof Tapas Das's responses as per the
      following:-
      (1) Two complaints refer to face book posts between two projects
      students and Prof Tapas das indecent on both sides.
      (2) One complaint is by a set of concerned students with whom the
      project students had discussed their problems in the past. The
      statements made by these students confuse pornographic literature
      with Marxist literature and hence cannot be considered seriously.
      (3) One long complaint with one-sided posts by a former PDF, Prof
      Das responded to this by producing 100 pages of the face book
      posts, showing the posts made by both sides. The posts from both
      sides were highly inappropriate.
      (4) Though a former Kanpur IIT student had complained to the
      enquiry committee of harassment by Prof Tapas Das on one of her
      visits, she returned the following summer to complete the project
      with Prof Tapas Das.
      According to Director the picture that emerges is - Prof Das
      engaged in flirtatious behavior with female project students and
      PDFs. The case particularly with PDF mentioned above shows that
      two consenting adults having a "good" time on face book.
      After considering the above, the council came to conclusion that
      the case against Tapas Das is strong enough to take punitive action.
                                      5
                                                       Writ A No. 12736 of 2018

      Considering this as a case of misconduct, the council decided the
      following:-
      (1) Prof Das will not be permitted to take any female students or
      PDFs or RAs to work with him.
      (2) Selection committees for these positions are to be informed of
      this so that they do not assign any women to work with him in any
      of the above mentioned capacities.
      (3) This is the first such official reported case of misconduct
      against Prof Tapas Das. Prof Das shall be issued with 'censure'. In
      case, he is found indulged in such activities again, stern action
      shall be taken against him.

      The council authorized Chairman/Director to issue penalty of
      "censure" to Prof Tapas Das mentioning above decision of the
      council. The Chairman also directed that respective committees
      responsible for the activities mentioned in point (1) and (2) above
      should also be informed about the decision separately”
8.    On basis of aforesaid proposal, impugned order dated 09.07.2017
was passed by Chairman, Governing Council of HCRI, Allahabad
imposing a penalty of ‘Censure’ and that petitioner will not be permitted
to take any female students or PDFs or RAs to work with him. For
reference aforesaid order is reproduced hereinafter:

                                  “ORDER
      The Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
      Redressal Act 2013) is an act that provides protection against
      sexual harassment of women at workplace and for the prevention
      and redressal of complaints of sexual harassment. Sexual
      harassment results in violation of the fundamental rights of a
      woman to equality under articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of
      India and her right to life and to live with dignity under article 21
      of the Constitution and the right to practice any profession or to
      carry on any occupation, trade or business which includes a right
      to a safe environment free from sexual harassment.
      As many as 10 complaints of sexual harassment have been
      received against Dr Tapas Kumar Das, Associate Professor ‘G’,
      Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Allahabad. Many of these
      complainants were from young woman project students and PDF
      who were visiting the Institute and working under Dr Tapas Kumar
      Das. The inquiry against these complaints was conducted by the
      “Internal Complaints Committee / Women’s Grievances Cell”.
      WHEREAS, Dr Tapas Kumar Das was provided the copies of the
      alleged complaints, Dr Tapas Kumar Das submitted his responses
                                      6
                                                      Writ A No. 12736 of 2018

      to the alleged complaints. The Internal Complaints Committee /
      Women’s Grievances Cell examined the responses of Dr Tapas
      Kumar Das and found the responses of Dr Tapas Kumar Das
      totally unconvincing. The committee found Dr Tapas Kumar Das
      guilty of sexual harassment and mental harassment of young
      women by using his position of power in the Institute.
      NOW THEREFORE, after taking into account the responses of Dr
      Tapas Kumar Das, the facts and circumstances of the case and
      findings of the Committee, the Governing Council is satisfied that
      the allegations of Sexual Harassment against Dr Tapas Kumar Das
      are correct. After consideration, the Governing Council (as
      disciplinary authority) came to conclusion that the case against Dr
      Tapas Kumar Das is strong enough to take punitive action.
      Considering this as a case of misconduct on part of Dr Tapas
      Kumar Das, the Governing Council has, therefore, decided to
      impose the penalty of “Censure” on him. A copy of this order shall
      be placed in the personal file of Dr Tapas Kumar Das. Governing
      Council also decided that Dr Tapas Kumar Das will not be
      permitted to take any female students or PDFs or Ras to work with
      him. In case, Dr Tapas Kumar Das is found indulged in such
      activities again, stern action shall be taken against Dr Tapas Kumar
      Das.”

9.    Aforesaid order is under challenge in present writ petition.

10.   Sri Ritzu Ghoshal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Sayantan Chatterjee, Sri Anirban Ghosh and Ms. Vishakha Pandey,
Advocates for petitioner, vehemently referred various documents
annexed alongwith this writ petition and counter affidavit as well as
referred various provisions of POSH Act and made following
submissions on facts as well as on law:

      (A)   POSH Act is a Special Act, therefore, its provisions have to
      be followed strictly in its letter and spirit. Section 9 of POSH Act
      provides complaint on sexual harassment that any aggrieved
      women may make in writing a complaint of sexual harassment at
      workplace to ICC within a period of three months from the date of
      incident and in case of series of incidents, within a period of three
      months from the date of last incident. In the present case
      admittedly complaints were filed beyond said period, i.e., after
      more than six months without any reason to condone such delay.
                               7
                                               Writ A No. 12736 of 2018

(B)   Period of limitation as provided under Section 9 of POSH
Act was also taken note by ICC in it’s report dated 17.08.2016 that
though the incidents were not reported within three months or six
months, still considering that complaints against petitioner were
extremely serious and multiple, therefore, ICC proceed to consider
the complaints. According to learned Senior Advocate POSH Act
does not provide any such liberty or extension of time period
provided under the Special Act.

(C)   Learned Senior Advocate submitted that in aforesaid
circumstances, ICC could not proceed on basis of such belated
complaints which appear to be of alleged occurrence occurred
between 2013 to 2016. The complaints were undated and without
disclosing specific dates of alleged incidents, i.e., all complaints
were vague.

(D)   In support of above submissions, learned Senior Advocate
has placed reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in X vs.
Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1964
and refers its paragraphs no. 8, 13, 14, 15, 22, 29, 31, 32 and 33.
For reference said paragraphs are reproduced hereinafter:

      “8. The neat question which falls for consideration of this
      Court is: whether the Division Bench of the High Court is
      justified in non-suiting the appellant on the ground that her
      complaint was barred by limitation.”
      “13. Section 9 of the Act postulates that any aggrieved
      woman may make a complaint, in writing, of sexual
      harassment at the work place to the Local Committee within
      a period of three months from the date of incident, and in
      the case of series of incidents, within a period of three
      months from the date of the last incident. The second
      proviso to Section 9 provides that the LCC may for reasons
      to be recorded in writing, extend the time of making the
      complaint not exceeding three months, if it is satisfied that
      the circumstances prevailing prevented the woman from
      filing of the complaint within the period prescribed.
      14. In other words, a complaint of sexual harassment is
      mandatorily required to be filed within a period of three
                         8
                                          Writ A No. 12736 of 2018

months from the date of the last incident of such harassment
or within a further extended period of three months, i.e.,
within a maximum period of six months from the date of the
last incident of sexual harassment.
15. No doubt, the issue of limitation is ordinarily a mixed
question of fact and law and it may not be possible to throw
out a complaint at the threshold without collecting material
on the factual aspects relating to the limitation. Nonetheless,
where a complaint on the simple reading of the averments
made therein appears to be patently barred by limitation, it
can be rejected at the very first instance on the analogy of
Order VII Rule 11 CPC, without even calling the other side
to participate in the proceedings.”
“22. The complaint of the appellant from the last incident of
sexual harassment of April 2023, is certainly beyond time.
However, the issue is whether the subsequent event of
removal of the appellant from the post of the Director,
CFRGS or initiation of inquiry by the Executive Council are
in any way linked to sexual harassment or amounts to
sexual harassment as described under Section 3(2) of the
POSH Act.”
“29. The alleged act of harassment of April 2023, was a
complete act in itself and had not continued thereafter. The
administrative measures of August 2023, were independent
and were collective decisions of the NFCG and the
Executive Council which cannot be solely attributed to the
Vice-Chancellor. The said decision may have caused
inconvenience to the appellant or may have given an
impression that they are in line with previous acts of
harassment, but they were not part of the continued sexual
harassment. The subsequent events have no connection to
the earlier act of sexual misconduct and as such, fall clearly
out of the preview of acts or behaviours amounting to
sexual harassment. In this way, the incident of April 2023,
remains the last event related to sexual harassment.”
“31. The appellant, in filing the complaint, also moved an
application for condonation of delay stating that there were
“mitigating circumstances” which she had attempted to
resolve within the institution and when she failed, she then
filed the complaint. The very fact that the appellant was
conscious of the fact that her complaint was delayed, proves
that she herself treated the act of April 2023, to be the last
incident of sexual harassment and as such, tried to explain
the delay in filing the complaint.
                                9
                                                 Writ A No. 12736 of 2018

       32. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well
       as the discussion, we are of the view that the Division
       Bench of the High Court committed no error of law in
       restoring the decision of the LCC that the complaint of the
       appellant is time barred and is liable to be dismissed.
       33. It is advisable to forgive the wrongdoer, but not to forget
       the wrongdoing. The wrong which has been committed
       against the appellant may not be investigated on technical
       grounds, but it must not be forgotten.”
(E)    Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that even if in
above circumstances the ICC proceed to consider complaints, the
inquiry has to be conducted in terms of provisions provided under
Section 11 of POSH Act read with Rule 7 of Rules made
thereunder that statements of victims shall be recorded, petitioner
be    granted   opportunity     to    make     cross-examination         and
subsequently both parties be granted opportunity of being heard
and only thereafter on basis of consideration, a report be
submitted, however, same was not followed.

(F)    Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that on bare
perusal of inquiry report of ICC it is evident that statements of
victims were never recorded, therefore, there was no occasion for
cross-examination, petitioner was not provided any opportunity of
oral hearing and only on basis of a reply, which was submitted
without details of complaints etc. which admittedly not provided,
it was held that petitioner was guilty of sexual and mental
harassment of young students/ postdocs by using his position and
power in HCRI, Allahabad. According to learned Senior Advocate
even the outcome of inquiry was not based on any material or
specific consideration.

(G)    Learned Senior Advocate lastly submitted that complaints
filed by complainants does not indicate dates of complaint, no
specific date was also mentioned of alleged sexual harassment and
complaints were of alleged occurrence occurred many years ago.
                                    10
                                                    Writ A No. 12736 of 2018

11.   Per contra, Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Ms. Akashi Agarwal, learned counsel for respondents, on basis of
material, was not able to show that statements of victims were recorded
before ICC or that petitioner was granted any opportunity of personal
hearing as well as that there was no consideration on allegation made by
complainants on basis of their complaints, i.e., in the impugned order
nature of allegation was not reflected or considered to that extent that
petitioner was guilty of sexual harassment.

12.   Learned Senior Advocate for respondents further submitted that in
case the Court finds that due procedure was not followed by ICC, the
matter may be remitted back to ICC for fresh consideration and to
recommence from the stage an irregularity was committed, i.e., entire
material be provided to petitioner so that he may submit a fresh reply.

13.   Learned Senior Advocate has opposed the argument of learned
Senior Advocate for petitioner that complaints were time barred in terms
of provisions of Section 9 of POSH Act and he referred contents of
complaints that it were serious so much as that petitioner used to call his
students in night at his office and harassed them sexually and mentally.
He was engaged in sending message to his girl students having
unwelcome acts and making sexually coloured remarks as well as one of
the victim has complained about unwelcome physical contact and
advances, therefor, he was rightly subject to inquiry.

14.   Learned Senior Advocate for respondents further submitted that in
such circumstances, rigor of delay can be relaxed taking note of object of
POSH Act, i.e., to provide protection against sexual harassment of
women at workplace and for prevention and redressal of complaints of
sexual harassment and for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto.

15.   Learned Senior Advocate referred para 31 of X vs. Nirmal Kanti
Chakrabarti (supra) that condonation of delay can be considered in
certain circumstances, such as circumstances of present case.
                                    11
                                                     Writ A No. 12736 of 2018

16.   Heard learned Senior Advocates for the parties and perused the
material available on record.

17.   POSH Act is a Special Act, which was enacted in pursuance of
directions passed by Supreme Court in Vishaka and others vs. State of
Rajasthan and others, 1997(6) SCC 241 after about 16 years with
following object:

      “An Act to provide protection against sexual harassment of women
      at workplace and for the prevention and redressal of complaints of
      sexual harassment and for matters connected therewith or
      incidental thereto.
      WHEREAS sexual harassment results in violation of the
      fundamental rights of a woman to equality under articles 14 and 15
      of the Constitution of India and her right to life and to live with
      dignity under article 21 of the Constitution and right to practice
      any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
      which includes a right to a safe environment free from sexual
      harassment;
      AND WHEREAS the protection against sexual harassment and the
      right to work with dignity are universally recognised human rights
      by international conventions and instruments such as Convention
      on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women,
      which has been ratified on the 25th June, 1993 by the Government
      of India;
      AND WHEREAS it is expedient to make provisions for giving
      effect to the said Convention for protection of women against
      sexual harassment at workplace.”
18.   The Court first proceed to consider, whether procedure prescribed
for inquiry into complaints as provided under Section 11 of POSH Act
read with Rule 7 of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace
(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013, were strictly
followed or not. For reference aforesaid Section 11 and Rule 7 are
reproduced hereinafter:

      “11. Inquiry into complaint.—(1) Subject to the provisions of
      section 10, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the
      case may be, shall, where the respondent is an employee, proceed
      to make inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the
      provisions of the service rules applicable to the respondent and
      where no such rules exist, in such manner as may be prescribed or
                               12
                                                Writ A No. 12736 of 2018

in case of a domestic worker, the Local Committee shall, if prima
facie case exist, forward the complaint to the police, within a
period of seven days for registering the case under section 509 of
the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and any other relevant
provisions of the said Code where applicable:
Provided that where the aggrieved woman informs the Internal
Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, that any
term or condition of the settlement arrived at under sub-section (2)
of section 10 has not been complied with by the respondent, the
Internal Committee or the Local Committee shall proceed to make
an inquiry into the complaint or, as the case may be, forward the
complaint to the police:
Provided further that where both the parties are employees, the
parties shall, during the course of inquiry, be given an opportunity
of being heard and a copy of the findings shall be made available
to both the parties enabling them to make representation against
the findings before the Committee.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 509 of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the Court may, when the
respondent is convicted of the offence, order payment of such
sums as it may consider appropriate, to the aggrieved woman by
the respondent, having regard to the provisions of section 15.
3. For the purpose of making an inquiry under sub-section (1), the
Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be,
shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) when trying a suit in
respect of the following matters, namely:—
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and
examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; and
(c) any other matter which may be prescribed.
(4) The inquiry under sub-section (1) shall be completed within a
period of ninety days.”
“7. Manner of inquiry into complaint.—(1) Subject to the
provisions of section 11, at the time of filing the complaint, the
complainant shall submit to the Complaints Committee, six copies
of the complaint along with supporting documents and the names
and addresses of the witnesses.
(2) On receipt of the complaint, the Complaints Committee shall
send one of the copies received from the aggrieved woman under
                                     13
                                                       Writ A No. 12736 of 2018

      sub-rule (1) to the respondent within a period of seven working
      days.
      (3) The respondent shall file his reply to the complaint along with
      his list of documents, and names and addresses of witnesses,
      within a period not exceeding ten working days from the date of
      receipt of the documents specified under sub-rule (1).
      (4) The Complaints Committee shall make inquiry into the
      complaint in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
      (5) The Complaints Committee shall have the right to terminate the
      inquiry proceedings or to give an ex parte decision on the
      complaint, if the complainant or respondent fails, without
      sufficient cause, to present herself or himself for three consecutive
      hearings convened by the Chairperson or Presiding Officer, as the
      case may be:
      Provided that such termination or ex parte order may not be passed
      without giving a notice in writing, fifteen days in advance, to the
      party concerned.
      (6) The parties shall not be allowed to bring in any legal
      practitioner to represent them in their case at any stage of the
      proceedings before the Complaints Committee.
      (7) In conducting the inquiry, a minimum of three Members of the
      Complaints Committee including the Presiding Officer or the
      Chairperson, as the case may be, shall be present.”
19.   The Court finds that manner of inquiry, as referred above, was not
followed by ICC. Though petitioner was provided copy of complaints
but certain details were not provided, such as when they are served upon
ICC and that though no specific procedure was prescribed under Rule 7
still it has been consistently held in various judgments of this Court and
Supreme Court that principle of natural justice be followed and that ICC
shall have power as vested in Civil Courts under Code of Civil
Procedure so far as summoning and enforcing attendance of any person
and examine him in Court is concerned.

20.   However, there is no reference in ICC report, whether statements
of complainants were recorded before Committee or not and if
statements were recorded, whether a copy of same was provided to
petitioner or not. There is no reference, whether petitioner was asked to
cross-examine the complainants or was provided any opportunity of oral
                                     14
                                                       Writ A No. 12736 of 2018

hearing as well as that learned Senior Advocate for respondents has also
not able to satisfy this Court about above referred lacuna in procedure.
Therefore, the Court finds that procedure adopted by ICC was defective.
Accordingly, its outcome, i.e., inquiry report as well as order passed by
Council and Institute cannot sustain.

21.   After observing above, now the question is, whether matter can be
remitted back to ICC to recommence from the stage of a fresh reply from
petitioner. However, before it, the Court has to consider rigor of time
period provided to make complaints under Section 9 of POSH Act,
which is reproduced hereinafter:

      “9. Complaint of sexual harassment.—(1) Any aggrieved woman
      may make, in writing, a complaint of sexual harassment at
      workplace to the Internal Committee if so constituted, or the Local
      Committee, in case it is not so constituted, within a period of three
      months from the date of incident and in case of a series of
      incidents, within a period of three months from the date of last
      incident:
      Provided that where such complaint cannot be made in writing, the
      Presiding Officer or any Member of the Internal Committee or the
      Chairperson or any Member of the Local Committee, as the case
      may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the woman for
      making the complaint in writing:
      Provided further that the Internal Committee or, as the case may
      be, the Local Committee may, for the reasons to be recorded in
      writing, extend the time limit not exceeding three months, if it is
      satisfied that the circumstances were such which prevented the
      woman from filing a complaint within the said period.
      (2) Where the aggrieved woman is unable to make a complaint on
      account of her physical or mental incapacity or death or otherwise,
      her legal heir or such other person as may be prescribed may make
      a complaint under this section.”
22.   In order to verify, whether complainants have made serious
allegations of harassment or not, the Court takes note of copy of
complaints annexed alongwith this writ petition and relevant part of
some complaints, without disclosing name of respective victim, are
mentioned hereinafter:

      xxx
                                15
                                                  Writ A No. 12736 of 2018

“He was going to Varanasi to meet with one of the ex-student of
HRI who happened to be my very good University friend. My
friend was visiting Varanasi with his parents and also invited me
over. TD offered me to come along with him and share his room. I
was utterly shocked and dropped the visit altogether. I have the
mail he sent for booking details. He probably realised that I can’t
be manipulated like this and never gave any such indescent direct
proposal later on.”
xxx
“First was his tendency to call very late at night sometimes, and his
insistence on me coming in to work or discuss things very late too.
It was my very first research project, and I was still trying to figure
out the dynamics of academia and put down my misgivings about
the late hours to ‘this is how things are in research’. The second
was him adding me as a friend on facebook, and sometimes
sending messages there (which I never replied to). Even though the
content of the messages at that point were not inappropriate, they
were also in no way related to the project, and the medium of
communication seemed improper. He also started started
commenting on my posts and I eventually blocked him there.”
xxx
“He had a tendency to bring up highly inappropriate things under
the guise of ‘sexuality in philosophy’ and so on. He even
mentioned masturbation and incest (he knew I read a lot and sent
me a French book once that dealt with this topic).”
xxx
“This was the general scheme of things till one day he proceeded
to take my hand and hold it while he talked in his office, and I
froze and was in utter shock and fear and didn’t do anything other
than just sit there in creeping fear. This then happened pretty soon
a couple of days later, and this time I was prepared and protested,
and he said not to make things complicated. He then again
proceeded to grab my arm, and this time tried to pull me towards
him and probably get me to sit on his lap. By then I was already in
tears and told him to let me go and managed to splutter out that I
was not okay with what he was doing.”
xxx
“He used to asked me to come in night at his office. In day time he
won’t take classes, he call me at night. But usually I avoid to go
because I got some hint about his behaviour. But one day I was
having some problem in my project and I asked him during day
time but he told me to come at night after the dinner. When I go
there he didn’t solve my problem rather he harasses me sexually
                                       16
                                                        Writ A No. 12736 of 2018

      and mentally. I started weeping and was going to tell these things
      to security guards, but he stopped me forcefully and didn’t let me
      go out and asked me not to tell these things to anybody can’t
      explain how much I was scared and what was my mental condition
      at that time. But I tell these things to Mrityunjay Bhaiya, Research
      Scholar at HRI.”
23.   The contents of aforesaid complaints are serious in nature and
would fall within the four corners of definition of “sexual harassment” as
mentioned in Section 2(n) of POSH Act, which is reproduced
hereinafter:

      “(n) “sexual harassment” includes any one or more of the
      following unwelcome acts or behaviour (whether directly or by
      implication) namely.--
               (i) physical contact and advances; or
               (ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
               (iii) making sexually coloured remarks; or
               (iv) showing pornography; or
               (v) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal
               conduct of sexual nature.”
24.   Aforesaid complaints refer various incidents though specific dates
are not mentioned and that Court is not aware that when these
complaints were made to ICC as on complaint no date was mentioned in
record and also taking note that even in X vs. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti
(supra) Supreme Court has observed that in certain circumstances delay
may not be considered adverse to the extent that complaints may be
rejected at threshold as it would not be in consonance of object of POSH
Act and that normally such complaints are not made immediately,
specially when complainants were working under delinquent as it would
affect their respective future.

25.   In aforesaid circumstances, the Court finds that complaints cannot
be rejected at threshold without specific consideration. Therefore,
impugned order dated 09.07.2017 is hereby set aside. ICC is directed to
consider all complaints afresh on basis of details such as time period of
allegation, specific date of complaints as well as any explanation by
                                                                     17
                                                                                        Writ A No. 12736 of 2018

                            complainants to approach at belated stage and after considering all
                            aspect, ICC will take a fresh decision, whether complaints have to be
                            rejected at threshold or to proceed further and there must be a reasoned
                            decision on this issue.

                            26.         A copy of the decision be provided to petitioner though at this
                            stage it is not required that petitioner may participate in inquiry. His
                            locus to participate in inquiry will only commence if after on basis of
                            above referred decision, ICC proceed to conduct inquiry in a manner
                            provided under the provisions of POSH Act and Rules. The fresh
                            decision to proceed further with complaint or not shall be passed within
                            a period of eight weeks from today.

                            27.         The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.



                            May 07, 2026                       (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
                            AK




Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad