POSH Act: All India Annual Digest 2025

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 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.POSH Act | Woman Can Approach ICC Of Her Department Against Harassment By Employee Of Another Workplace: Supreme CourtCase Title: DR. SOHAIL MALIK VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1191Supreme 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 CourtSuspension Of HOD In Sexual Harassment Case Builds Confidence In Employees, Prevents Abuse Of Power: Allahabad High CourtCase 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) 209The 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 CourtAP High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To 3 Booked For Trafficking, Sexual Exploitation Of Women In Guise Of Running SpaCase Title: SHAIK ASIF and Others v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 127The 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 CourtTelling Woman Colleague That She Must Be Using JCB To Manage Her Hair Is Not Sexual Harassment: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Vinod Kachave vs The Presiding Officer (ICC)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 108Telling 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.POSH Act Won't Apply To Sexual Harassment Complaints Of Women Advocates To Bar Council Against Other Lawyers : Bombay High CourtCase Title: UNS Women Legal Association (Regd) vs Bar Council of...

POSH Act: All India Annual Digest 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags