By Anuradha Gandhi and Abhishekta Sharma
Introduction
In July 2025, the Delhi High Court inaugurated a new online portal for filing sexual harassment complaints, a landmark initiative aimed at enhancing accessibility, confidentiality and transparency for women in legal profession.[1]
This move coincides with the growing presence of women in legal field. As reported during an unstarred question in Rajya Sabha (2023), the then Minister of Law and Justice Shri Kiren Rijiju stated that as per report provided by Bar Council of India across 15 states, 284,507 women are enrolled as advocates out of total 1,542,855, accounting for 15.31%.[2] With female participation steadily increasing such institutional reforms aim to ensure workplaces are safer, more inclusive and affirm the voices of women at all levels.
At the launch of the portal, Supreme Court Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh quoted “Sexual harassment at workplace is antithetical to the core constitutional values of equality, liberty, justice and dignity of individual”[3]
He underscored that sexual harassment blocks women’s potential and must be tackled directly. By supporting a broader interpretation, he laid emphasis on the following that:
- The Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act (hereinafter referred to as POSH Act) is designed to protect all women, regardless of their official employment status.
- The judiciary must ensure the Act meets its goal of creating safe work environments for female advocates too.
A Paradigm Shift in Redressal Mechanism
The Portal commended for enhancing confidentiality, efficiency and accessibility to victims of sexual harassment shifts the narrative from compliance to meaningful empowerment. By integrating Internal Complaints Committee (hereinafter referred to as ICC) allow women to file complaints from home or office which will help in protecting their identities and sensitive information and also let complainant choose between ICCs of High Court, DHCBA (Delhi High Court Bar Association) or BCD (Bar Council of Delhi) based on the respondent’s affiliation.
Legal Debate: Are Female Advocates Covered?
Despite these advances, institutional challenges persist, the Bar Council of India and several other State Bar Councils have demonstrated different position on the creation and functioning of POSH committee, particularly concerning whether women advocates who may not be direct employees can benefit from the POSH Act, this difference of opinion was highlighted from the case of UNS Women Legal Association (Regd) vs Bar Council of India (BCI)[4], wherein the Court held that neither Bar Council of India nor Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa can be considered ‘employers’ of advocates practicing under their aegis.
The petition before the court has sought direction for Bar Councils to constitute Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) to handle sexual harassment complaints against advocates as per the per Supreme Court earlier directives under Medha Kotwal Lele vs Union of India & Ors.[5]
However, the Court said that sexual harassment complaints from women advocates should be handled through Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961[6] under which Bar Council has jurisdiction to take action against any advocate for not just professional but other misconduct also.
Section 35 of the Advocates Act
Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 provides Punishment of advocates for misconduct. It empowers Bar Council to take disciplinary action against advocates for professional misconduct, but the section is not insufficient to address nuances of sexual harassment claims.
The section lacks the trauma sensitive processes, victims often face institutional apathy, also lacks interim protections and specialized mechanism central to sexual harassment such as ICCs time bound inquiries and protection against victimization. Also sometimes it can lead to conflict of interest since Bar Council can themselves be subject of complaints.
Gap between section 35 and POSH style safeguards
This ruling has exposed the gap between protections of women in legal profession as:
Advocates work side-by-side in court and chamber facing same risks of harassment as other professionals, yet fall outside the special statutory protection. Further relying on section 35 does not provide victim with supportive, confidential and prompt redressal the POSH Act mandates for other profession.
This judgement underscores that while courts, bar councils and other such bodies regulate the profession, advocates operate as independent professionals not employees marking a clear delimitation for applying workplace harassment laws.
Workplace under POSH Act
As per Section 2(o) of the POSH Act “workplace” includes— (i) any department, organisation, undertaking, establishment, enterprise, institution, office, branch or unit which is established, owned, controlled or wholly or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the appropriate Government or the local authority or a Government company or a corporation or a co-operative society and any place visited by the employee arising out of or during the course of employment[7]
The law covers not just employees but “aggrieved women” which under section 2(a) of the POSH Act[8] means any women regardless of her age or employment status who alleges to have been subjected to sexual harassment as a workplace.
This indicates legislative intent to provide protection to women irrespective of formal employee-employer relationship.
Further, in the case of Aureliano Fernandes vs State Of Goa[9] the Supreme Court said that the State functionaries and private and public sector undertakings/organisations/ bodies/institutions, etc. shall put in place sufficient mechanism to ensure full implementation of Vishaka guidelines and further provide that if the alleged harasser is found guilty, the complainant victim is not forced to work with/under such harasser and where appropriate and possible the alleged harasser should be transferred. Further provision should be made that harassment and intimidation of witnesses and the complainants shall be met with severe disciplinary action. Also, the Bar Council of India shall ensure that all Bar Associations in the country and persons registered with the State Bar Councils follow Vishaka guidelines.
Conclusion
Together, these developments highlight evolving challenges and active responses in safeguarding women in India’s legal profession. While Bombay High Court has clarified the legal boundaries of the POSH Act’s applicability, the Delhi High Court’s POSH portal demonstrates a proactive approach to strengthening grievance redressal within judiciary ecosystem. Also judicial precedents like Vishaka guidelines emphasized on constitutional values and affirmed the right to every women a safe workplace. Therefore, denying female advocates protection under the POSH Act on technical grounds subverts legislative intent and constitutional mandates.
https://ssrana.in/posh-law/articles/ola-drivers-are-not-employees-under-the-posh-act-a-legal-battle/
https://ssrana.in/posh-law/articles/supreme-courts-directions-to-ensure-posh-compliance/
[2] https://sansad.in/getFile/annex/259/AU123.pdf?source=pqars
[3] Ibid
[4] 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2647
[5] (2013) 1 SCC 297
[7] https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_13_14_00009_201314_1517807327213&orderno=2
[8] https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_13_14_00009_201314_1517807327213&orderno=2
[9] Civil Appeal No. 2482 of 201