By Vikrant Rana , Anuradha Gandhi and Isha Sharma
Introduction
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has taken a significant step towards addressing the concerns surrounding sexual harassment redressal mechanisms for women advocates practising before courts, tribunals and other quasi-judicial authorities.
On September 18, 2026 a Bench comprising Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih observed that the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 commonly known as the POSH Act, cannot be applied in a ‘straightjacket manner’ to aggrieved women belonging to the legal profession. [1]
Recognizing the distinctive nature of legal practice and the need for a wider framework of protection, the Court called upon the parties, including the Union Government and the Bar Council of India (BCI) to undertake a joint consultation and formulate a set of regulations for addressing sexual harassment complaints across High Courts, district courts, tribunals and quasi-judicial forums.
The development assumes particular significance because the applicability of the POSH Act to women advocates has remained a subject of legal debate, especially in circumstances where there is no conventional employer-employee relationship between the complainant and the alleged harasser.
Background
The present proceedings arise against the backdrop of concerns regarding the availability of effective remedies for women advocates facing sexual harassment in professional settings.
The POSH Act was enacted to provide a statutory framework for the prevention and redressal of sexual harassment at the workplace. It imposes obligations on employers to provide a safe working environment and establishes mechanisms for receiving and inquiring into complaints of sexual harassment at workplaces.
However, the application of this framework to the legal professional presents distinct challenges. Advocates may practice independently, appear before different courts and tribunals, work in chambers and engage with opposing counsel, court staff and other professionals. These professional relationships do not invariably arise out of a conventional employer-employee arrangement.
Consequently, questions have arisen regarding the identification of the appropriate authority to receive complaints, the constitution of a competent redressal body and the applicability of the statutory framework where the alleged harasser and the complainant do not share an employment relationship.
This issue gained prominence following a judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in UNS Women Legal Association (Regd.) v Bar Council of India & Ors. which held that the POSH Act did not apply to advocates in the absence of an employer-employee relationship between advocates and the relevant Bar Councils. The Court distinguished the position of advocates from that of employees of the Bar Councils, to whom the Act could apply in the appropriate circumstances.
Matter reaching the Supreme Court
Advocate Seema Joshi filed writ petition under Article 32. At an earlier stage, the Bench has asked whether a High court order could be challenged under Article 32. A special Leave petition, is now being heard along with it. The Supreme Court women lawyers association (SCWLA) has also intervened and asked that the POSH Act be extended to women lawyers across the country.[2]
The Hearing on September 18, 2026
The case, Seema Joshi v Bar Council of India & Anr, was heard by a Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih. In the proceedings, Ministry of Women and Child development was made a party. The Centre held its stance that POSH Act does not expressly exclude women advocates from its scope. It relied on the definition of ‘aggrieved woman’ in Section 2(a), which covers any women, whether employed or not. Protection depends on women’s presence at the workplace.
The Court perused the Gender Sensitisation and Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and redressal) Regulations, 2013. But highlighted its limited scope of protecting those who work within the Supreme Court premises. To ensure a wider coverage to cover women lawyers who practice in High court, district courts or tribunals, Court emphasized the need for separate set of regulations.
“In order to have a wider coverage of these Regulations insofar as the High Courts and all Courts under the District Judiciary as well as Tribunals of the Central and State Governments, other quasi-judicial authorities 2 etc, it is necessary that a separate set of Regulations are made as we find that the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of the Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohitbition and redressal) Regulations, 2013 cannot be applied in a straitjacket manner to an aggrieved women, who belonged to the legal professions practising before other Courts, Tribunals or other fora.”
The Court further directed the parties to “have a joint consultation so as to draft a set of Regulations applicable to all the aforesaid judicial and quasi-judicial Courts, Tribunals and authorities”.
The response of bar council of India’s learned counsel was also significant as it was held from their side to try to bring about common regulations for all women in the legal profession. It highlights a significant shift as earlier Bar Council had opposed the idea of it being responsible for grievances of women advocates.
The court also directed the Bar Council of India to seek information from the State Bar Councils to understand whether any system for dealing with sexual harassment complaints are already in place.
Significance of Judgment
While no final decision is made by the court, but it does show how the Court has evolved its thinking on the issue.
- a) The court has moved from the question raised in Bombay High court case, whether any employer-employee relation exists to the question of how to protect the women lawyers in practice.
- b) Its remarks that the framework cannot be applied in a “straightjacket manner” shows that Court wants a system that fits the legal profession.
- c) Directions to draft the regulations jointly will address the practical mechanism of filing and dealing with sexual harassment complaints.
- d) Positive stance of the Union government on women advocates as ‘aggrieved women’ and Bar council of India’s willingness to work on common regulations are encouraging signs.
Conclusion
The order dated 18 September 2026 is a step forward for women advocates. The drafting is now left to the parties. They will have to settle who sets up the committees and where a complaint can be filed. The next hearing scheduled on 25 November 2026 will show how far the draft regulations have come.
Anukriti , Intern at S.S. Rana & Co. who has assisted in the research of this article.
[1] https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/09/22/4659720252026-09-18-701771.pdf