The Supreme Court of India has issued a significant notice to the Union of India and the Bar Council of India (BCI) on a public interest litigation (PIL) that seeks to extend the protection of the POSH Act, 2013 (Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace – Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal Act) to women advocates practicing before courts and registered with State Bar Councils.
The petition highlights a critical gap in the law, arguing that women lawyers—who are an integral part of India’s justice delivery system—remain excluded from the statutory safeguards available to women employees under the POSH framework.
Background of the Petition
The petition was filed by advocate Seema Joshi, noted for her authorship of Breaking the Silence: A Handbook on the POSH Act and for her role as a member of the Internal Committee of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA).
The plea demands that Bar Councils, Bar Associations, and courts be brought under the purview of the POSH Act, ensuring that women advocates have access to Internal Committees (ICs) for complaints of workplace sexual harassment.
Importantly, the petition also seeks to overturn the Bombay High Court’s July 7, 2025 judgment in UNS Women Legal Association (Regd.) v. Bar Council of India & Ors., which restricted the application of the POSH Act to employees of Bar Councils and Bar Associations, excluding women lawyers from its ambit.
Constitutional Grounds Raised
The petition firmly anchors its arguments in the fundamental rights of women advocates. Referring to the Preamble of the POSH Act, it highlights that sexual harassment at the workplace is a violation of:
- Article 14: Right to equality
- Article 15: Right against discrimination
- Article 21: Right to life and dignity
- Article 19(1)(g): Freedom to practice any profession, which necessarily includes a right to a safe work environment
By excluding women advocates from its scope, the petition argues, the High Court ruling undermines constitutional guarantees.
Bench Observations in the Supreme Court
The matter was heard by a division bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan, who issued notices to the Union and the BCI.
However, Justice Nagarathna raised a procedural issue—questioning how a petition under Article 32 could directly challenge a High Court judgment.
“Either you file a PIL under Article 32, or you challenge the Bombay High Court order as an SLP. You cannot file a writ petition challenging the High Court order. If you are wanting to achieve something, do it properly,” Justice Nagarathna remarked.
In response, counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Ritika Vohra, agreed to modify the petition by:
- Withdrawing the prayer challenging the High Court judgment
- Dropping interim relief for a stay
- Deleting the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, as well as the State of Maharashtra, as respondents
Thus, the petition continues as a PIL focusing on the broader issue of bringing women advocates under the protection of POSH.
Statutory Provisions Relied Upon
The petition strongly emphasizes the inclusive language of the POSH Act:
- Section 2(a): Defines “aggrieved woman” as any woman, whether employed or not.
- Section 3: Prohibits sexual harassment against any woman at the workplace.
- Section 2(o)(i): Defines “workplace” to include institutions, establishments, or offices, which the petitioner argues includes courts, Bar Councils, and Bar Associations.
The plea contends that since *Bar Councils are statutory bodies under the Advocates Act, 1961, and **Bar Associations function within court premises supported by State infrastructure, they squarely fall within the definition of “workplace” and must establish Internal Committees under *Section 4 of the POSH Act.
Reliance on Precedent – Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India
The petition cites the landmark case Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2013) 1 SCC 297, in which the Supreme Court directed all institutions, including courts and Bar Councils, to establish mechanisms to redress complaints of sexual harassment in line with the Vishaka Guidelines.
It argues that the Bombay High Court judgment is per incuriam for failing to consider these binding directions and for excluding women advocates from statutory protection despite established institutional practice.
Current Institutional Practices
The petitioner highlighted that several institutions already treat courts and Bar Councils as “workplaces” under POSH:
- Bar Council of Delhi has constituted an Internal Committee to hear complaints from women advocates.
- Delhi High Court Bar Association has its own framework for handling such complaints.
- Supreme Court’s 2013 Regulations extend protection to “any female, of any age, whether employed or not” within the Supreme Court precincts.
This demonstrates an institutional acknowledgment that women advocates deserve protection, and the High Court ruling disrupts this practice by creating a statutory vacuum.
Petition’s Prayer
The PIL requests the Supreme Court to:
- Declare that the POSH Act applies to women advocates, regardless of their employment status.
- Direct Bar Councils, Bar Associations, and courts to constitute Internal Committees under Section 4 of the Act.
- Use the Court’s extraordinary power under Article 142 to ensure a purposive interpretation of the Act and to safeguard the rights of women advocates.
Legal Representation
The petitioner was represented by a team of advocates led by:
- Ritika Vohra (Advocate-on-Record)
- Amber Tickoo
- Naman Joshi
Why This Case Matters
This case is not just about technical interpretation of a statute; it is about ensuring that women in the legal profession are not left without remedies against workplace harassment. Advocates spend much of their professional lives in court complexes, Bar Council offices, and Bar Associations—all of which should be safe spaces under the law.
By raising this issue, the petition challenges systemic blind spots in the implementation of gender justice in legal institutions themselves.
If successful, the PIL could have nationwide impact by mandating all Bar Councils and Bar Associations across India to set up Internal Committees, thereby extending robust protection under POSH to thousands of women advocates.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s notice in Seema Joshi v. Bar Council of India & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 805 of 2025) marks an important step in recognizing that women advocates are entitled to the same safeguards under the POSH Act as women in other workplaces.
The petition highlights how restrictive interpretations of the law can exclude vulnerable groups, despite the Act’s clear intent to protect “any woman” at the workplace. With precedents like Medha Kotwal Lele and institutional practices already treating courts as workplaces, the Supreme Court now faces the task of ensuring consistency, inclusivity, and constitutional fidelity.
The outcome of this case could fundamentally reshape how sexual harassment protections are applied in India’s legal profession, reinforcing that the pursuit of justice must begin at home—within the institutions that administer it.
Also Read
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea of Former DRT Chandigarh Judge Against Extension of Suspension
