SC Issues Notice on PIL Seeking POSH Act Protection for Women Advocates

The Supreme Court has issued notice in a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking recognition that protections under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) extend to women advocates registered with State Bar Councils and practicing before courts.

A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan issued notice to the Union of India and the Bar Council of India in the PIL filed by advocate Seema Joshi, author of Breaking the Silence: A Handbook on the POSH Act and member of the Internal Committee of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA).

The plea urges the Court to direct Bar Councils and Bar Associations across the country to constitute Internal Committees (ICs) to adjudicate complaints of sexual harassment made by women advocates.

“Excluding Women Advocates Defeats the Purpose of POSH”

The petition argues that the Preamble to the POSH Act affirms that sexual harassment is a violation of a woman’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution. It stresses that excluding women advocates from the ambit of the Act would defeat its very object, which is to ensure a safe workplace for all women, whether employed or not.

In support of this, the petition cites Section 2(a) of the Act, defining an “aggrieved woman” as one “whether employed or not,” and Section 3, which prohibits sexual harassment against “any woman” in the workplace. It also refers to Section 2(o)(i) to argue that courts, Bar Councils, and Bar Associations are “institutions” or “establishments” that qualify as workplaces under the Act.

Challenge to Bombay High Court Judgment

The PIL also seeks to set aside the Bombay High Court’s judgment dated July 7, 2025, in UNS Women Legal Association (Regd.) v. Bar Council of India & Ors., to the extent it limits the POSH Act's applicability to only employees of Bar Councils and Bar Associations. The petitioner contends that this restrictive interpretation wrongly excludes women advocates, creating a statutory vacuum.

The petition states: “The Hon'ble High Court's Judgment dated 7.7.2025 has the immediate and deleterious effect of excluding an entire class of women professionals—namely, women advocates—from the statutory protection and redressal mechanisms envisaged by the POSH Act, despite the plain language of the statute, its expansive definitions, and the binding directions of this Hon’ble Court in Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2013) 1 SCC 297.”

It also refers to existing Internal Committees already constituted by the Bar Council of Delhi and the Delhi High Court Bar Association, and the Delhi High Court's framework that recognizes lawyers and litigants as potential complainants and respondents. Additionally, the petition references the Supreme Court’s 2013 Regulations that extend protection under POSH to “any female, of any age, whether employed or not” within court premises.

Article 32 vs. SLP: Bench Seeks Clarification

During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna raised procedural concerns about filing the writ petition under Article 32 to challenge a High Court judgment, suggesting that the petitioner should either file a proper PIL under Article 32 or challenge the Bombay HC ruling via a Special Leave Petition (SLP).

“Either you file a PIL under Article 32, or you challenge the Bombay High Court order as an SLP. You cannot file a writ petition challenging the High Court order. If you are wanting to achieve something, do it properly,” Justice Nagarathna remarked.

In response, Advocate Ritika Vohra, appearing for the petitioner, agreed not to press the prayer seeking to set aside the HC judgment and also to withdraw the interim prayer for stay. She further agreed to delete the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and the State of Maharashtra as parties.

Extraordinary Jurisdiction Under Article 142

The petitioner also urges the Court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to ensure a purposive interpretation of the POSH Act that includes women advocates within its protective ambit.

The petition relies heavily on the binding precedent of Medha Kotwal Lele, in which the apex court directed the establishment of grievance redressal mechanisms in professional bodies including Bar Councils and Bar Associations.

Case Title: Seema Joshi v. Bar Council of India & Ors.