Can POSH Act Apply On Women Lawyers? Supreme Court Suggests Separate Law

The Supreme Court today heard a PIL challenging the non-application of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) to women advocates, who do not share a traditional employer-employee relationship with Bar Councils or State Bar Associations.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih allowed the Ministry of Women and Child Development to be impleaded as a respondent and was given liberty to file its counter affidavit.

Advocate Saket Sikri, appearing for the Petitioner, submitted before the bench that an additional affidavit had been filed in light of the Guidelines issued by the BCI. Notably, Bar Council of India (BCI) recently issued Guidelines on the application of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 to Bar Associations, law offices, State Bar Councils and the BCI.

Sikri contended before court today that the Guidelines failed to address certain nuances concerning the application of the POSH Act to the legal profession. He further submitted that the issues raised in the PIL required consideration and that an appropriate framework specifically tailored to the legal profession should be implemented.

The court opined that, given the distinct nature of the legal profession, the POSH Act cannot be applied in a ‘straitjacket manner’. Further, the bench urged the Union and the Bar Council of India (BCI) to study and examine the Gender Sensitization and Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Regulations, 2013 (The Supreme Court Regulations 2013) and jointly draft a similar framework to be implemented in High Courts as well as other Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Courts and Tribunals.

Court observed that the Supreme Court Regulations of 2013 were working quite well and asked the parties to consider how the same could be replicated for advocates across the country.

Justice Nagarathna added that the proposed regulations would have to define what constitutes a “workplace” for advocates and could not merely replicate the provisions of the POSH Act. Court also directed the BCI to ascertain whether any such regulations were already being implemented by the State Bar Councils.

Last year in August the Supreme Court has issued notice in the plea filed through AOR Ritika Vohra under Article 32 seeking application of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) on lawyers.

“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(1)(g), which includes the right to a safe environment free from sexual harassment. The very object and design of the statute is to give effect to these rights, and any interpretation that excludes women advocates from its protection is contrary to the constitutional purpose that the Act seeks to fulfil”, the petition states.

Relying on the decision in Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India wherein Supreme Court had itself directed the BCI to ensure the implementation of the Vishaka guidelines, meant to curb sexual harassment in the workplace, across all Bar bodies, the plea argues that by ignoring this binding precedent, the Bombay High Court's ruling is per incuriam.

The plea filed by Seema Joshi, also challenged the Bombay High Court ruling that the provisions of the POSH Act do not apply to advocates, as there is no employer-employee relationship between Bar Councils and members of the legal profession.

Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising former Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne had in July dismissed a public interest litigation filed in 2017 by the UNS Women Legal Association, which had sought the constitution of permanent Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) within the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) and the Bar Council of India (BCI).

“Neither the Bar Council of India nor the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa can be said to be the employers of advocates. Thus, the provisions of the POSH Act do not apply,” the Court had held. While rejecting the petition, the Court emphasized that women advocates are not without remedy in cases of harassment by fellow lawyers. It pointed to Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which empowers State Bar Councils to inquire into allegations of professional or other misconduct against advocates.

Earlier, the supreme court had dismissed a similar 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 said the issue fell within the Parliament's domain.

Case Title: SEEMA JOSHI vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

Hearing Date: September 18, 2026

Bench: Justices Nagarathna and Masih