Supreme Court Seeks Centre and BCI Response on Extending POSH Act Protections to Women Lawyers


The Supreme Court of India has initiated a crucial examination of whether women advocates should be allowed to file sexual harassment complaints before state bar councils under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). This follows a petition challenging a Bombay High Court judgment that denied such protection on the ground that lawyers are not employees of bar councils.


Background: Bombay High Court’s Controversial Interpretation

On July 7, 2024, the Bombay High Court ruled that women advocates cannot approach state bar councils with POSH complaints because:

  1. No employer–employee relationship exists between lawyers and bar councils.

  2. POSH Act mandates such a relationship to trigger its applicability.

  3. Therefore, bar councils cannot constitute a permanent POSH committee for lawyers.

The ruling came in response to a petition by UNS Women Legal Association, and the judgment applied specifically to the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa.


Supreme Court Intervention: Notice Issued to Centre and BCI

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan admitted the petition filed by the Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association (SCWLA).
The Court issued notice to:

  • Union of India

  • Bar Council of India

  • Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa

  • Maharashtra State Government

The petition was argued by Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani.


Petitioner's Concerns: A Legal Vacuum for Women Advocates

The SCWLA petition warns that the Bombay High Court ruling leaves women lawyers without any effective remedy for workplace sexual harassment because:

POSH Act is excluded:

Bar councils cannot constitute Internal Complaints Committees (ICC) since there is no employer–employee relationship.

Advocates Act, 1961 (Section 35) is inadequate:

Section 35 deals with professional misconduct, not sexual harassment.
It is disciplinary—not remedial—thus failing to provide:

  • time-bound inquiry

  • trauma-sensitive procedures

  • confidentiality protections

  • protection against victimisation

  • immediate interim reliefs

The petition states that equating POSH mechanisms with Section 35 proceedings is “arbitrary and unreasonable”.


Supreme Court's Observations: GSICC Exists in the Apex Court

The bench noted that the Supreme Court itself has a Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee (GSICC) which handles harassment complaints from:

  • women lawyers

  • interns

  • law clerks

  • staff working in the Supreme Court

Justice Nagarathna, who heads the GSICC, shared operational insights and stressed that even non-harassment complaints are processed to maintain institutional accountability. This indicates the Court’s broader approach to gender-sensitive grievance redressal.


The Petition’s Legal Argument: POSH Act Must Apply to Lawyers

The petition argues that the Bombay High Court ruling is contrary to:

1. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

The Supreme Court held that every workplace—public or private—must have a sexual harassment redressal mechanism, regardless of employment formalities.
The Vishaka Guidelines were intended to be expansive and inclusive.

2. Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2013)

The Supreme Court specifically directed the Bar Council of India to ensure full compliance with Vishaka Guidelines across bar councils.

3. 2013 POSH Act’s Purpose

The POSH Act was enacted to give statutory backing to the Vishaka Guidelines and must therefore be interpreted liberally to cover all working women, including self-employed and independent professionals like advocates.

4. Constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15 and 21

Any exclusion of women advocates:

  • violates equality

  • perpetuates discrimination

  • denies dignified, safe working conditions

5. Recent 2024 Supreme Court Monitoring Order

The apex court sought compliance reports on POSH implementation from all states and UTs, including professional bodies. This includes:

  • bar councils

  • medical councils

  • architects’ associations

  • chartered accountant bodies

Thus, bar councils cannot be excluded.


Core Legal Issue for Determination

The Supreme Court will now examine:

Does a “workplace relationship” under the POSH Act necessarily require a formal employer–employee contract, or can lawyers be considered persons working at a workplace where the bar council controls their professional ecosystem?

This determination will have nationwide implications for:

  • sexual harassment complaints by women lawyers

  • functioning of bar councils

  • interpretation of the POSH Act

  • rights of self-employed professionals across India


Implications of the Bombay High Court Judgment

The High Court held that the POSH Act applies only where:

  • an employer hires a woman

  • the woman works under a contract or engagement

  • control and supervision elements exist

Since advocates are independent professionals, the court said:

“Neither Bar Council of India nor Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa can be said to be employers of advocates.”

However, the Act does apply to:

  • clerical staff

  • administrative employees

  • officers working directly under bar councils


Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved

POSH Act, 2013

  • Section 2(o): Definition of “workplace”

  • Section 4: Constitution of Internal Complaints Committee

  • Section 9–13: Complaint, inquiry, recommendations

  • Section 19: Employer obligations

Advocates Act, 1961

  • Section 35: Professional misconduct

  • Section 6 & 7: Functions of State Bar Councils and BCI

Constitution of India

  • Article 14: Equality before law

  • Article 15(3): Special provisions for women

  • Article 19(1)(g): Right to profession

  • Article 21: Right to dignity and safe working conditions

  • Article 38: Social justice

  • Article 39A: Equal justice

Key Judicial Precedents

  • Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

  • Apparel Export Promotion Council v. Chopra (1999)

  • Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2013)

  • NALSA v. Union of India (2014) – workplace dignity

  • BCI directions on GSICC (post-Medha Kotwal)


Conclusion: A Landmark Case for Women Lawyers in India

This matter will decide whether women lawyers—one of India’s most vulnerable professional groups—can access a statutory mechanism for sexual harassment complaints. The Supreme Court’s ruling will likely reshape:

  • professional safety standards

  • bar council responsibilities

  • interpretation of workplace protections

  • constitutional obligations toward gender justice

If the POSH Act is extended to lawyers, it will close a long-standing legal vacuum and protect thousands of women advocates nationwide.



Comments

Popular posts

Father of RG Kar Victim Loses Faith in Legal System Amid Allegations of CBI Inconsistencies

Bill Gates Applauds India's 'Namo Drone Didi' Program: A Game-Changer in Rural Empowerment and Agri-Tech

Flight Operations Disrupted Amid India-Pakistan Tensions: Air India and IndiGo Cancel Multiple Flights on May 13, 2025

Your Complete Online Guide to Land Records and Services in Bihar

Equality Before Law

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores

Rights of a Arrested Person in India

India vs Pressure: Why New Delhi Is Not Backing Down on Russian Oil Amid Global Scrutiny