SC STRIKES DOWN ORDER REQUIRING FORMER NUJS VC TO DISCLOSE DISMISSED SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE IN HIS CV:

The Supreme Court has withdrawn a direction from one of its earlier judgments that had required Professor Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, former Vice Chancellor of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS), to disclose in his resume that a sexual harassment complaint against him had been dismissed. This correction was issued by a bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, which clarified that such a direction was inappropriate in light of the fact that the complaint had been rejected solely on the ground of limitation and that no finding of guilt had been recorded against the former Vice Chancellor.

On September 12, the same bench had held that the sexual harassment complaint filed by a faculty member of NUJS could not be entertained under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, as it was filed beyond the time permitted under the statute. While disposing of the complaint, the Court made a remark in the concluding part of the judgment suggesting that the incident, although time-barred, should not be entirely forgotten and should be mentioned in the respondent’s resume. The Court had expressed that the alleged acts, though condoned by limitation, ought to remain a reminder to the respondent. It had further directed that the judgment be incorporated into Professor Chakrabarti’s curriculum vitae and that he personally ensure compliance with this direction.

Professor Chakrabarti subsequently approached the Court seeking deletion of this direction. He argued that requiring him to mention a dismissed complaint in his resume would seriously prejudice him, especially since the Court had not made any finding on the merits of the allegations. Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the former Vice Chancellor, emphasized that such a mandate would stigmatize an individual who had not been held guilty of any wrongdoing. On the other hand, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing for the complainant, opposed the request and contended that the appropriate remedy for modifying a judgment was to file a formal review petition.

The bench chose not to delve into the procedural objection regarding maintainability and instead treated the applicant’s plea as a review petition for practical purposes. In reconsidering its earlier direction, the Court explained that its intention in adding the sentence to the original judgment was simply to keep the public informed about the existence of the incident involving the respondent. However, the judges acknowledged that since there had been no adjudication on the merits and the complaint had been dismissed purely for being time-barred, requiring the former Vice Chancellor to carry this remark forward in his resume was unwarranted. The Court also noted that the matter appeared to be under investigation or trial following the registration of an FIR, making the earlier observation unnecessary at this stage.

Accordingly, the bench ordered the removal of the sentence requiring the judgment to be made part of Professor Chakrabarti’s resume. It clarified that the specific portion of the earlier judgment, beginning from the direction that the incident be allowed to “haunt the wrongdoer” and ending with the requirement of personal compliance, stood deleted. The Court concluded that, as it had not issued any findings on the merits of the allegations, retaining such a direction would be inappropriate.