By Anuradha Gandhi, Isha Sharma and Abhishekta Sharma
Introduction
In a major stride towards protection of female advocates under Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as POSH Act) a petition has been filed before the Supreme Court of India seeking to bring Bar Councils and Bar Association under the ambit of POSH Act.
The petition filed by Advocate Seema Joshi[1], a member of the Internal Committee of the National Legal Service Authority (NALSA) raised concern about lack of institutional mechanisms for addressing sexual harassment faced by women in legal profession. It specifically calls for the constitution of Internal Complaint Committee within Bar Councils and Bar Associations, thereby providing women advocates with the protections guaranteed under the POSH Act.
Background of the case
This plea stems from a previous case UNS Women Legal Association (Regd.) v. Bar Council of India & Ors.[2] wherein a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by a Women’s Advocate Association, seeking direction to the Bar Council of India and as well as Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa to consider formation of permanent Internal Grievance Committee of women advocates in all State Bar Council offices and all Bar Associations of Maharashtra.
However, the Bombay High Court in its ruling dismissed the PIL stating that
“The provisions of the Act of 2013 apply where the relationship of employer and employee exists. Neither Bar Council of India nor Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa can be said to be employer of advocates. Therefore, the provisions of the Act of 2013 do not apply in so far as it pertains to advocates. However, the same would apply insofar as it pertains to employees of the Bar Council of India as well as Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa.”
Further, the court held that “insofar as grievance of the lady advocates is concerned, suffice it to say that they have a forum under Section 35 of the Advocates Act[3], 1961 under which the Bar Council has jurisdiction to take action against any advocate for not just professional but also other misconduct.”
Supreme Court Proceeding
Following the Bombay High Court’s dismissal, Advocate Seema Joshi approached the Supreme Court seeking a remedy under Article 32 of the Constitution of India[4], which provides citizens the remedies for enforcement of fundamental rights.
The Court had issued notice to the Bar Council of India and the concerned Bar Association seeking response on the matter.
The bench of Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan further questioned the maintainability of the plea under Article 32 against a High Court order stating that stay and setting aside of the Bombay High Court order cannot be filed under Article 32.[5]
Argument of the petitioner
It has been reported that in the present case the petitioner argued that the POSH Act’s provision to prevent sexual harassment should be applicable to all female advocates to ensure safety and dignity at work.
It was contended that the Preamble to the POSH Act itself states that sexual harassment violates a woman’s fundamental rights to equality under Articles 14 and 15, life and dignity under Article 21, and freedom to practice any profession under Article 19, which includes the right to a safe environment free from sexual harassment.
Reliance on Landmark Judgement
Further, in support to the plea, the petitioner relied on earlier decision of Supreme Court in Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India[6], where the Bar Council of India was directed to ensure the implementation of Vishaka guidelines across all Bar bodies contending that the Bombay High Court ruling was per incurian.
In the case of Medha Kotwal the main contention was actual implementation of the Vishaka Guidelines and suffering of women due to non-implementation. The court reaffirmed Vishaka Guidelines as binding law until robust legislation was enacted, emphasizing symbolic or superficial compliance was unacceptable. The Court issued detailed directions:
- States government must amend their Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and standing orders to incorporate the guidelines within two months.
- States governments must ensure there is an adequate number of Complaint Committees within each headed by women, to address harassment cases.
- Committees’ reports should be treated as equivalent to disciplinary inquiries.
- Professional bodies such as the Bar Council of India ensure that all bar associations in the country and persons registered with the State Bar Councils follow the Vishaka Guidelines. Similarly other bodies like Medical Council of India, Council of Architecture and others shall ensure that the organizations, bodies, associations, institutions and persons registered/affiliated with them follow the guidelines.
Conclusion
The issue before the Supreme Court’s is therefore of vital significance, as the conflicting decisions by various High Courts have created ambiguity. While some High Courts taken progressive step by constituting Internal Complaint Committee[7], other have denied the applicability of POSH Act to female Advocates. Resolving this ambiguity is essential to ensure that female advocates are afforded the same statutory protection against workplace harassment as other professionals, thereby upholding their fundamental right to safe and dignified work environment. This issue before Supreme Court marks a critical move towards ensuring a safe and respectful working environment especially considering that for independent female advocate court complexes, bar association offices and bar council premises serve as their primary workplaces and excluding them from POSH protection not only undermines their rights but also reinforces systemic vulnerabilities to workplace harassment.
[1] Seema Joshi v. Bar Council of India & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 805 of 2025)
[2] 2025 SCC Online Bom 2647
[3] Punishment of advocates for misconduct, https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_3_46_00001_196125_1517807320172§ionId=14672§ionno=35&orderno=42?
[4] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/981147/
[5] https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/46597/46597_2025_5_18_63744_Order_29-Aug-2025.pdf
[6] (2013) 1 SCC 297