On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to examine a petition seeking the applicability of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, to women advocates enrolled with State Bar Councils and Bar Associations.
The petition, filed by advocate and author Seema Joshi through counsels Ritika Vohra and Naman Joshi, challenges this restrictive interpretation. It argues that the absence of statutory protection leaves women lawyers vulnerable to harassment without a uniform mechanism of redress across states. The plea also seeks directions to ensure that Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) are constituted and remain functional within all Bar Councils and Bar Associations, consistent with the purpose of the 2013 Act.
A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan issued notice to the Union Government and the Bar Council of India (BCI), calling for their response on the issue.
During the proceedings, the Bench raised questions on the maintainability of the petition, observing that a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution could not ordinarily be invoked to challenge a High Court judgment. The petitioner later clarified that the relief sought was confined to ensuring implementation of the POSH Act for women lawyers, and not to overturn the Bombay High Court’s ruling.
On July 7, 2025, the Bombay High Court had held that the POSH Act applies strictly within the framework of an employer–employee relationship, and therefore women advocates, as independent professionals, do not fall within its ambit.
According to the petitioner, excluding women advocates from the scope of the POSH Act amounts to a violation of their fundamental rights, including equality under Articles 14 and 15, the right to life and dignity under Article 21, and the freedom to practice a profession under Article 19(1)(g), which necessarily encompasses the right to a safe workplace environment. The petition contends that the very objective of the POSH Act is to safeguard women from harassment at the workplace, and that any interpretation excluding women advocates defeats the constitutional intent behind the statute.
The Top Court has directed that the matter be listed after responses are filed by the Centre and the Bar Council of India.
Picture Source :
