SC Deletes Direction Asking Ex-NUJS VC to Mention Dismissed Sexual Harassment Complaint in Resume
SC bench deleted its earlier direction asking ex-NUJS Vice Chancellor to disclose dismissed sexual harassment complaint in resume
The Supreme Court has withdrawn a controversial direction from its September 12, 2025, judgment that required Professor Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti, former Vice Chancellor of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, to disclose in his resume the dismissal of a sexual harassment complaint filed against him.
The Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale was hearing a miscellaneous application moved by Chakrabarti seeking expunction of a sentence in paragraph 34 of the judgment.
The Court ordered the deletion after noting that the complaint was dismissed on the ground of limitation under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, and that no finding on merits was recorded against Professor Chakrabarti.
Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the applicant, argued that while the Court had not held Chakrabarti guilty of any misconduct or offence, the observation in question amounted to punishment by implication.
Opposing the request, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, for the appellant, argued that the application itself was not maintainable and that the appropriate remedy would have been a review petition. She noted that the sentence had been included in the judgment consciously and that there was no reason for its removal.
Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Madhavi Divan clarified, however, that the applicant was not seeking a review of the judgment, only removal of the single sentence that could affect his reputation.
Choosing not to rule on maintainability, the Bench stated that the application would be treated either as a miscellaneous application or a review petition and would be decided on merits.
The Bench clarified that the original observation had been included only to provide context regarding the incident involving the applicant, but since no finding of guilt existed and the matter appeared to be under investigation or trial pursuant to an FIR, the Court found it appropriate to delete the sentence.
The Bench accordingly ordered removal of the impugned sentence, from the word “Thus” up to “personally” in paragraph 34, on the ground that the Court had not indicted Chakrabarti on the merits of the matter.
"Accordingly, we delete the aforesaid sentence beginning from ‘Thus’ and ending with ‘personally’ contained in paragraph No. 34 of the judgment and order dated 12.09.2025 for the reason that we have not indicted the applicant/respondent on merits in any manner though the matter may have been argued on merits. Accordingly, I.A. No. 242096/2025 stands allowed and the miscellaneous application stands disposed of," the Court ordered.
On September 12, the Bench had ruled that the complaint by a faculty member was filed beyond the statutory time limit and could not be entertained. While dismissing the case, the Court had remarked that the incident “may be forgiven but allowed to haunt the wrongdoer forever” and directed that the judgment be included in the former VC’s curriculum vitae, ensuring personal compliance. “It is advisable to forgive the wrongdoer, but not to forget the wrongdoing. The wrong which has been committed against the appellant may not be investigated on technical grounds, but it must not be forgotten," the Bench had said.
Case Title: Vaneeta Patnaik v. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti
Order Date: November 17, 2025
Bench: Justices Pankaj Mitthal and Prasanna B Varale