SC to Examine Implementation of Workplace Harassment Act for Women Lawyers

By: WE Staff | Saturday, 30 August 2025

• The Supreme Court has consented to hear a plea that demands implementation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act
• Notices were issued to the Bar Council of India by a bench consisting of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan

On Friday, the Supreme Court considered a petition inquiring whether the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (or POSH Act) can be made applicable to women advocates enrolled with State Bar Councils/ Bar Associations.

A two-judge bench of justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan heard the case and directed notices to the Centre and Bar Council of India. The Court even raised the issue of whether a writ was to be sought under Article 32 of the Constitution against the High Court order at the time of hearing.

Earlier, the Bombay High Court on July 7 held that POSH Act is applicable only to employer-employee relationships and hence does not cover women lawyers. Subsequently, the counsel for the petitioner consented to withdraw the prayer for setting aside the High Court order.

The petition, moved by author and advocate Seema Joshi through advocates Ritika Vohra and Naman Joshi, has asked for directions to include women advocates who are enrolled with Bar Associations and State Bar Councils within the ambit of the POSH Act's protection.

It has also asked for the setting up or continuation of internal complaints committees under the Act to try cases against women lawyers.

The petition argues that in the absence of clarity on this issue, women lawyers in India are afforded different rules of protection, contrary to the expressed aim and objective of the Statute.

It asserts that the Preamble of the POSH Act recognizes sexual harassment is a violation of the fundamental right of all women to equality (Articles 14 and 15), to dignity and life (Article 21), and to engage in a profession of choice (Article 19).

Any interpretation which seeks to restrict women advocates from obtaining the benefits of the statute would be contrary to its constitutional purpose, it states.