Supreme CourtSupreme Court Holds NUJS Faculty's Sexual Harassment Complaint Against VC Time-Barred; But Directs VC To Mention Judgment In His ResumeCase Title: VANEETA PATNAIK v NIRMAL KANTI CHAKRABARTI & ORS.| Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17936 of 2025Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 902Supreme Court ruled that the sexual harassment alleged by a faculty member of the West Bengal...
Supreme Court
Case Title: VANEETA PATNAIK v NIRMAL KANTI CHAKRABARTI & ORS.| Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17936 of 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 902
Supreme Court ruled that the sexual harassment alleged by a faculty member of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Science against the Vice Chancellor of the University, is time-barred as the alleged incident happened in April 2023, but the complaint was filed in December 2023, after a maximum statutory limitation of six months prescribed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
Case Title: DR. SOHAIL MALIK VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1191
Supreme Court held that when a woman is subjected to sexual harassment at the workplace by a person who is not part of her own organisation, she is entitled to file her complaint before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of her own workplace, and not before the ICC of the third party's establishment.
Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Shailendra Kumar Rai v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 209 [WRIT - A No. - 6131 of 2025]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 209
The Allahabad High Court has held that suspension of head of department accused of sexual harassment builds confidence in women employees of his department and prevents abuse of power by the accused.
Justice Ajit Kumar held, “Naturally if the employee is regularly discharging duties on a position that he holds as ahead of the department, in matters of complaint of sexual harassment where a decision is yet to be taken finally by the authority, the authority may place the said employee under suspension firstly as a confidence building measure amongst the working women in the department and secondly to ensure that such an officer may not abuse his position to pressurize other working women or otherwise also to the aggrieved women even while the final action is still pending consideration.”
Petitioner was working as District Programme Officer, Kushinagar when he was suspended by an order passed by Chief Secretary Child Development and Nutrition, Uttar Pradesh on grounds that words said do not amount to sexual harassment, the internal complaint committee was not duly constituted under the Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Title: SHAIK ASIF and Others v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 127
The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a successive anticipatory bail plea of three persons accused of operating a brothel under the guise of running a Spa and recruiting women into prostitution.
The three accused were earlier denied anticipatory bail by the High Court on May 8.
Rejecting the second bail application, Justice Mallikarjuna Rao while referring to judgments on the subject said:
"...it is clear that unless there is a significant alteration in the factual circumstances or legal principles necessitating a reconsideration of the previous stance, or if the earlier determination has become obsolete, the second anticipatory bail application cannot be considered. In the absence of change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to consider the petitioners' second anticipatory bail application.”
Emphasizing that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary privilege, the court said that it "should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is prima facie convinced that the accused is enroped in the crime and unlikely to misuse the liberty granted".
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Vinod Kachave vs The Presiding Officer (ICC)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 108
Telling a woman colleague that 'you must be using JCB to manage your hair' and singing a song related to her hair, is not sexual harassment under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013, the Bombay High Court held recently while quashing a PoSH Act case against an employee of the HDFC bank. Single-judge Justice Sandeep Marne said it is difficult to hold that the conduct of the petitioner Vindo Kachave would amount to sexual harassment.
Case Title: UNS Women Legal Association (Regd) vs Bar Council of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 260
The Bombay High Court on Monday held that the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) 2013 (POSH Act) will not apply on the complaints lodged by female advocate members of the Bar Council of India (BCI) or the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (BCMG) against other advocates. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne held that the provisions of the POSH Act will not apply to the complaints of female lawyer members of the BCI and BCMG as there is no "employee-employer" relationship between them.
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Upholds ICC Verdict Finding DU Professor Guilty Of Sexual Harassment
Title: DR AMIT KUMAR v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 847
The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea filed by a professor of the Delhi University against the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) holding him guilty over the allegations of sexual harassment made by various students and an alumnus, as well as the decision to compulsory retirement him.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the Executive Authority gave a fair hearing to the professor and its failure to pass a speaking order did not pass the test of prejudice.
Title: KARAN MOOLCHANDANI v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 914
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR registered against an employer over allegations of sexually harassing and stalking a female employee, while asking him to do community service at a government hospital in the national capital every Sunday for the next six months.
Title: ASIF HAMID KHAN v. STATE & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1074
Citing Shakespeare, the Delhi High Court recently observed that despite stringent law and repeated lamentation about gender neutrality and equality, the psychology and mindset of men in workplace where sexual harassment continues to haunt women has remained unchanged, especially when it involves “Power-Dynamics.”
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Jayna Kothari v. Manish Kumar & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 418
The Karnataka High Court quashed a complaint by a former male employee of Zoomcar India Private Limited, alleging professional misconduct against Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari before the State Bar Council (KSBC).
Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed the complaint filed by the man, who was terminated from service after being found guilty of sexual harassment wherein Kothari was part of the company's Internal Complaints Committee as an external member. It also quashed a notice issued to Kothari by the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC).
Kerala High Court
Case Title: Hareesh M. S. v The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 113
The Kerala High Court held that an Internal Complaints Committee cannot proceed with a compliant if the allegations made in it does not constitute 'sexual harassment' under Section 2(n) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
Justice D. K. Singh said that in such cases, the jurisdictional fact for taking cognizance does not exist.
Case Title: Thomas Antony v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 195
The Kerala High Court has directed the State Government to formulate guidelines for anonymising details of the complainant from public domain during the enquiry proceedings under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). The Court stated that at present there is no mechanism under the POSH Act to anonymise the details of the complainant during the enquiry proceedings.
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar, however, clarified that this must not prejudice the rights of the employee against whom allegations are being made.
Case Title: X v Abraham Mathai and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 541
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that proceedings under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) cannot be initiated without a written complaint and that disputes of a purely labour nature do not fall under the Act's framework.
A division bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K V Jayakumar dismissed a writ appeal, affirming a single bench decision that quashed the finding of the Local Level Committee constituted under the POSH Act, and a subsequent communication from District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram.
Case Title: X v Abraham Mathai and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 541
The Kerala High Court has ruled that allegations of creating a hostile work environment, without any element of sexual conduct or advances, do not amount to “sexual harassment” under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act).
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar made the observation while dismissing a writ appeal challenging a single judge's decision that had quashed the report of a Local Level Committee constituted under PoSH Act and a compliance directive from the Thiruvananthapuram District Collector.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: X v Indira Gandhi National Tribal University [WP No. 10864-2023]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 233
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the termination of a professor from the Indira Gandhi National Tribal University accused of sexually harassing and exploiting a female student, after noting that the relationship between the two was going on prior to her admission in 2021.
Quashing the charges of sexual harassment, the court directed his reinstatement into service "forthwith". It however said that he would remain under suspension till fresh order is passed as to charge pertaining to leaking of question paper to the student.
Justice Vivek Jain observed that the "University had no business" to inquire into a relationship between the professor and complainant, once she stated that had been in a relationship since 2013, and she only became a student of the University in 2021.
Madras High Court
Case Title: HCL Technologies Ltd. v. X
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 20
The Madras High Court has emphasised that under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act [PoSH Act], the act of sexual harassment itself is given significance and not the intention behind the same.
Justice RN Manjula thus observed that in cases under the Act, what has to be looked at is not what the accused thought was 'decent' but how such a person made a person of another gender feel about his actions. Thus, the court held that if any action or gesture was not received well and was inappropriate and felt as unwelcoming behaviour, it would fall within the definition of sexual harassment.
Case Title: XX v State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 446
The Madras High Court has commended the State of Tamil Nadu for implementing its earlier order to ensure the effective implementation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act (PoSH Act).
Justice RN Manjula observed that the government has shown tremendous interest in ensuring that the court orders are complied with and that the State emerges as a model for other States to follow.
The court added that each legislation brought in to prevent violence against women is not just a vow but an unspoken vow that the State has taken to see that such incidents are not repeated.
Rajasthan High Court
Title: X v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Justice Arun Monga at the Rajasthan High Court stayed the transfer of a government school lecturer who had filed a sexual harassment complaint against the school Principal.
The petitioner alleged that pursuant to the inquiry conducted in her complaint, the Principal was put in the category of Awaiting Posting Order (“APO”). However, she was "victimized" further after she was also put in the APO category without any fault on her part.