Sexual Harassment of Women & Transgender Persons: SC Seeks Status Report from All HCs on Gender Sensitisation Committees

The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea highlighting the non-formation of such committees in several High Courts and lower judiciary institutions, in violation of constitutional and workplace safety mandates.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was widespread non-compliance with the requirement to establish Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committees (GSICC) under the Supreme Court’s own Vishaka guidelines and subsequent regulations.

“There are seven High Courts with no guidelines or regulations at all. See Patna, there is nothing. In Jharkhand, only the High Court has a committee; the district courts are not covered. The same is true for Punjab and Haryana,” the Senior Advocate told the bench.

The petitioner argued that the absence of GSICCs in lower courts and Bar Associations leaves women and transgender lawyers, staff, and litigants without a formal redressal mechanism for sexual harassment, despite repeated judicial directions emphasizing safe workplaces.

Taking note of the submissions, CJI Surya Kant directed all Registrar Generals of High Courts to immediately verify and report the current status of compliance. “Registrar Generals of High Courts shall file status reports on whether Gender Sensitisation Committees on preventing sexual harassment of women and transgender persons have been constituted by all Bar Associations, High Courts, District Courts, subordinate and allied courts,” the CJI ordered.

The PIL has been filed by Geeta Rani@ Greta Jain through AoR Pravir Chowdhury practicing before courts across India has moved the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking directions to establish Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committees (GSICCs) across all High Courts, District Courts, Tribunals and Bar Associations to prevent harassment and discrimination against women lawyers, interns, litigants, and visitors in court premises.

The petition, which invokes the fundamental rights to equality, dignity, and safe working conditions under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21, highlights what it calls a “systemic vacuum” in institutional protection for women within the justice delivery system. While the Supreme Court has already constituted its own GSICC, the petitioner contends that no similar uniform structure exists across lower courts or Bar associations, resulting in serious constitutional violations. “Women lawyers, interns, litigants and court visitors regularly interact within the judicial ecosystem and are entitled to a safe environment that upholds their right to dignity and equal participation in the administration of justice,” the plea states.

The petition underscores that many courts and Bar Associations either lack an internal complaints mechanism or have systems that are not functional, accessible, or transparent. It alleges that information about grievance procedures, responsible authorities and complaint channels is opaque, leaving women exposed to unsafe conditions. “In several courts across the country, there is either no established internal redressal mechanism or the mechanism is not duly notified, accessible, or functional. Sensitisation among court staff, judicial officers and lawyers remains inadequate,” the petition notes.

The plea also argues that the absence of gender-sensitised mechanisms discourages women from participating fully in the legal profession and undermines India’s obligations under international law, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

Calling attention to the Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) precedent, the petitioner argues that courts and Bar bodies, as public workplaces, must comply with the Vishaka principles on preventing sexual harassment. The plea contends that the failure of Bar Associations and Bar Councils to create such structures constitutes a violation of women’s fundamental rights and India’s commitments under CEDAW.

The petition poses key questions of constitutional law, including:

-Whether the failure of Bar Associations to establish complaint mechanisms violates Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.

-Whether the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils, as statutory bodies regulating the legal profession, have a constitutional duty to ensure safe working conditions for women lawyers.

-Whether the absence of institutional redressal structures amounts to a breach of India’s international obligations under CEDAW and Vishaka guidelines.

The petitioner has urged the Supreme Court to direct the establishment of a uniform GSICC-type mechanism across all judicial and quasi-judicial institutions to ensure safe, accessible, and gender-sensitive courts nationwide. 

Case Title: Geeta Rani v. Union of India