Supreme Court Plea Challenges Kerala HC Verdict Limiting POSH Act to Exclude Women in Cinema, Media and Politics

The petition, filed by Advocate Yogamaya MG under Article 136 of the Constitution, assails the High Court’s ruling in W.P.(C) No. 36059 of 2018, delivered on March 17, 2022.

According to the petitioners, the verdict has effectively excluded vast categories of women engaged in non-traditional, informal, or freelance work arrangements from the protection of the Act; particularly in the film, media, and political sectors.

The petition filed through AoR Sriram P. argues that the POSH Act was deliberately enacted with broad definitions of “employer,” “employee,” and “workplace” to safeguard women against workplace harassment across formal and informal spaces, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s landmark Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) and Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2013) rulings.

However, the Kerala High Court, while recognizing the importance of preventive mechanisms, limited the law’s applicability in three key respects:

1. Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) are mandatory only for individual film production units employing more than 10 persons, and not for powerful industry associations like AMMA or FEFKA, which regulate conditions across the film industry.

2. Political parties, in the absence of a conventional employer-employee relationship, are not obliged to constitute ICCs.

3. Women working in establishments with fewer than 10 employees must rely solely on Local Complaints Committees, with no obligation on sectoral bodies to establish institutional redressal mechanisms.

The petitioner warns that this restrictive reading of the law leaves women in large, influential sectors; cinema, television, media, and politics, without effective remedies against workplace harassment. For women in politics, the vulnerability is acute. India has over 2,700 registered political parties, yet there is no uniform requirement for ICCs within party structures. While some parties like the CPI(M) have voluntarily set up ICCs, most rely on informal or ad hoc committees, leaving grassroots women political workers without meaningful recourse.

The petition cites studies by UN Women (2013) and the Inter-Parliamentary Union (2016) documenting the prevalence of sexual and psychological harassment of women in political spaces worldwide, arguing that India cannot afford to leave these gaps unaddressed.

The petition asserts that by limiting the law’s coverage, the Kerala High Court has undermined fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution. It also submits that India’s international obligations under the CEDAW Convention require robust, accessible mechanisms against sexual harassment across all sectors of women’s work.

The petitioners contend that a purposive interpretation of the Act would necessarily bring within its scope all women working under de facto organizational control, whether exercised by film production associations or political parties.

This is not the first time the petitioners have approached the Apex Court. They had earlier filed W.P.(C) No. 816 of 2024, which was disposed of with liberty to make a representation to the Election Commission of India. With no response forthcoming, they filed W.P.(C) No. 695 of 2025, which was later withdrawn with liberty to directly challenge the Kerala High Court’s 2022 judgment.

The SLP seeks leave to appeal against the impugned High Court judgment and a stay on its operation. The petitioners further seek a declaration that political parties and industry associations fall within the POSH Act framework, along with directions for the constitution of effective ICCs or sectoral redressal mechanisms to give full effect to the Act, the Vishaka guidelines, and constitutional guarantees.

In a related news, last month, the Apex Court had refused a petition seeking urgent directions to bring political parties within the ambit of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).

CJI BR Gavai led bench had said the issue fell within the "Parliament's domain". When Senior Advocate Rekha Gupta informed the bench that a similar petition was dismissed by the Kerala High Court, the top court suggested that an SLP may be filed against said dismissal. Agreeing to the same, the senior lawyer had requested to withdraw the instant petition.

The petition had invoked Article 32 of the Constitution and alleges that the exclusion of women political workers from the protections of the POSH Act violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21.

Case Title: Yogamaya MG v. State of Kerala & Ors. 

Bench: Supreme Court of India (hearing expected)