LawLoveLegal

Introduction A senior Haryana fisheries department official has approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging proceedings initiated against him under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). The petition also challenges the withdrawal of his promotion, alleging violations of statutory procedure, constitutional safeguards, and principles of natural justice. The case raises critical questions on jurisdiction under the POSH framework, procedural fairness in sexual harassment inquiries, and constitutional protections available to civil servants . Factual Background The petitioner, Shripal , was promoted and appointed as Director of Fisheries, Haryana, in 2024. As Joint Director, he functioned as the appointing and disciplinary authority for Group ‘C’ employees , thereby falling within the statutory definition of an “employer” under Section 2(g) of the POSH Act, 2013. In January 2026 , he was informed that two compl...

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: No employer–employee relationship exists between lawyers and bar councils. POSH Act mandates such a relationship to trigger its applicability. 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 Co...