A recent Calcutta High Court decision offers an important learning for Internal Committee (IC) members under the POSH Act, 2013.

The case* involved a contractual Data Entry Operator who alleged that a Deputy Superintendent of Police had touched her inappropriately between September 2021 and July 2022. She filed a complaint in January 2023, explaining that seeing the officer in the corridor after his return from a period of leave in October 2022 had revived her fear of working under him again.

The ICC initially found the allegations substantiated. However, the Tribunal set aside its report on the ground that the complaint was time-barred. The High Court upheld that decision, noting that the apprehension caused by seeing the officer did not, by itself, constitute a fresh incident of sexual harassment.

The IC might need to remember that fear is not automatically a fresh incident. The IC must identify the actual conduct alleged and assess it in accordance with the Act. While morally an IC member might be inclined to side with the complainant in a situation like the mentioned case, the IC is however bound by the law. 

So what does it mean for IC members?

Firstly it would be necessary to ensure that the case falls within the time period before investigating. Under Section 9(1) of the POSH Act, a complaint must ordinarily be filed within three months of the incident or, in a series of incidents, within three months of the last incident. The IC may extend this period by up to a further three months if the statutory conditions are met and reasons are recorded in writing.

Courts have shown flexibility when inquiry timelines have been exceeded, after a complaint was validly taken up by the IC, however, courts have been consistently stricter when reviewing delays of filing the complaint. As with the mentioned case, the statutory limitations under section 9 cannot be bypassed without a valid legal reason.

Why do the statute of limitations exist in the first place?

The POSH law is designed for speedy justice. It seems like the law recognizes that the wheel must keep rolling for the company. A shorter limitation period might help prevent old grievances from disrupting workplace environments years later. Perhaps it can also prevent complainants misusing the law, bringing up old incidents only with the intention of furthering some current agenda.

A short time period could also help in the preservation of evidence. With time memories fade, witness statements become unreliable and even digital evidence can either get deleted or altered. A three month window can help the IC collect credible and timely proofs. 

To ensure principles of natural justice can be upheld, a short time period might be more appropriate. Prompt reporting would allow the accused to receive the allegations quickly and afford them their chance to clear their name as soon as possible as well. It allows the complainant to get justice speedy justice without leaving the respondent facing indefinite uncertainty or reputational risk. 

So what can the IC do?

The IC would need to asses all delays in complaints thoroughly. If a complaint is beyond the initial three-month period, the IC must document a legally justifiable reason for allowing the complaint to be taken forward (but not beyond 6 months from the last incident). 

While the employees should be encouraged to report concerns promptly, in case they are confused about the timeline, it would be better to encourage the employees to seek guidance rather than have them assume they have lost the right to complain.

*(State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Lala Mir & Ors.): 2026