INDIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Preetha Soman, Madhur Khandelwal and Aishwarya Maria Manjooran, JSA Advocates & Solicitors
tive stance in November 2025. In Vaneeta Patnaik v Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti (2025 INSC 1106), the Apex Court held that a sexual harassment complaint filed beyond the statutory limitation period (three months, extendable by another three) is time-barred and can - not be subjected to investigation, based on the facts of the case. It was noted that the alleged act of har - assment had occurred in April 2023, and was a com - plete act in itself which did not continue thereafter. However, there was still an unexplained delay of more than six months in filing the complaint. This judgment underscores the critical need for ICCs to check whether the complaint is within the limitation period prescribed under the PoSH Act immediately upon receiving a complaint, subject to the facts of each case. Although the court took a strict stance on the limita - tion period aspect with respect to sexual harassment complaints, this judgment also upheld public account - ability as a facet of such scenarios. The Supreme Court has not only adjudicated the merits of com - plaints but also directed public disclosure elements (for example, directing references to judicial findings to be noted in service records and resumes of the accused party). This signals that courts may impose remedial measures that have reputational and career- impact consequences beyond monetary relief. The “Reasonable Woman” Standard and virtual workplaces The substantive interpretation of what constitutes har - assment has evolved to match modern work dynam - ics. Impact over intent – insignificant discrepancies cannot derail findings In January 2025, the Madras High Court delivered a significant judgment in HCL Technologies Ltd v N. Parsarathy (W.P. No. 5643 of 2020). The court applied the “reasonable woman” test, explicitly stating that the perception of the victim takes precedence over the intent of the perpetrator. The ruling clarified that “unwelcome behaviour” is defined by the discomfort it causes to the recipient, not the motive of the per - petrator. This places a higher burden on investigators
to assess the impact of conduct rather than getting bogged down in the accused’s lack of “bad intent”. The court also asserted that in disciplinary proceed - ings, especially the proceedings related to sexual har - assment, the courts should not get carried away with insignificant discrepancies or hyper-technicalities and the appreciation should be comprehensive, clarifying that the respondent should not be given an advantage by such minor discrepancies. The digital workplace With hybrid work becoming permanent, in Dr Amit Kumar v University of Delhi (W.P.(C) 586/2021 & CM APPL. 42639/2024), the Delhi High Court in August 2025 clarified that virtual platforms including What - sApp groups and Facebook interactions between colleagues constitute a “workplace” under the PoSH Act. Misconduct occurring on these platforms is now unequivocally within the ICC’s jurisdiction, compelling HR teams to update their digital conduct policies. Disciplinary enquiries: natural justice is non- negotiable The courts have continued to protect the procedural rights of employees, ruling that an internal investiga - tion cannot be a “kangaroo court” even when the mis - conduct is grave. The right to the report In December 2024, the Supreme Court in Ms X v Union of India (Writ Petition (Criminal) No(s). 284/2020) imposed a penalty on the employer (BSF) for failing to supply the inquiry report to the victim. The Court held that under Section 13 of the PoSH Act, sharing the findings with both parties was mandatory, not option - al. The judgment reinforced that the failure to provide the report vitiated the entire process and imposed a penalty on the employer, which was given to the victim In May 2025, the Supreme Court, in S. Janaki Iyer v Union of India (2025 INSC 742), reiterated that unlike criminal cases which require proof “beyond reason - able doubt”, domestic inquiries need only establish guilt based on a “preponderance of probabilities”. However, the court warned that this lower standard as compensation. Standard of proof
216 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook