Supreme Court Says POSH Act Cannot Be Applied ‘In Straitjacket Manner’ to Women Lawyers, Calls for Uniform Harassment Rules
The Supreme Court has called for a separate and comprehensive regulatory framework to address sexual-harassment complaints involving women lawyers, observing that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, cannot be applied to the legal profession in a “straitjacket manner.” The development came during the hearing of Seema Joshi v. Bar Council of India, a case concerning protection available to women advocates.
A Bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih considered the difficulty arising from the professional status of advocates. Unlike conventional employees, practising lawyers generally do not have an employer-employee relationship with Bar Councils or Bar Associations. This has raised a legal question over the direct applicability of the POSH Act to complaints made by one advocate against another.
The Supreme Court’s latest observation follows litigation over a Bombay High Court ruling which held that the POSH Act could not ordinarily be invoked by practising women advocates against fellow advocates through the Bar Council mechanism because Bar Councils are not the employers of advocates. The Bombay High Court had pointed towards disciplinary proceedings under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, as an available mechanism for professional or other misconduct.
The issue before the Supreme Court is therefore not simply whether women lawyers should receive protection from sexual harassment, but also which statutory or regulatory mechanism should provide that protection and who should be responsible for receiving and deciding complaints.
The Court noted that the Supreme Court itself has Gender Sensitisation and Sexual Harassment Regulations, 2013. However, those regulations operate within the precincts of the Supreme Court and do not automatically provide a common framework for women advocates practising before High Courts, district courts, tribunals and other quasi-judicial bodies.
Against this background, the Bench indicated that a separate set of regulations may be required for the wider legal system. The proposed framework would potentially cover women advocates appearing before High Courts, district and Taluka courts, tribunals of the Central and State Governments and other quasi-judicial authorities.
The Supreme Court has also called for consultation among the stakeholders. Counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India indicated that instructions would be sought with a view to developing a common regulatory framework for women in the legal profession. The Court also asked the BCI to ascertain whether State Bar Councils already have any regulations dealing with such complaints.
The proceedings have their roots in a broader challenge concerning the absence of a dedicated POSH-style mechanism for women advocates. A petition before the Supreme Court had sought implementation of the POSH framework for women enrolled with State Bar Councils and practising in courts, arguing that the absence of an employer-employee relationship should not leave professional spaces without an effective sexual-harassment redressal mechanism.
The controversy also highlights a structural difference between the POSH Act and the Advocates Act. While the POSH legislation establishes a specialised institutional mechanism for sexual-harassment complaints and contains confidentiality requirements, disciplinary proceedings under Section 35 of the Advocates Act operate within the framework of professional misconduct. The Supreme Court’s current proceedings are examining how these mechanisms can address the particular working environment of advocates.
The question assumes added significance because court complexes function as the principal professional workplace for many advocates. In a separate June 2026 proceeding concerning facilities for women lawyers, the Supreme Court observed that advocates spend substantial portions of their professional lives in court complexes and linked appropriate facilities with dignity, safety and equal participation in the profession.
Importantly, the latest proceedings do not amount to a final declaration that women lawyers have no protection against sexual harassment. Rather, the Supreme Court is examining how an effective and uniform mechanism can be created for a profession in which the conventional employer-employee model does not neatly apply.
The matter is expected to be considered further after consultations involving the relevant stakeholders. The Court’s intervention could ultimately lead to a common framework governing sexual-harassment complaints involving women advocates across different levels of the Indian judicial and quasi-judicial system.
