The Supreme Court has asked the Bar Council of India and the Centre to respond to a plea seeking applicability of the PoSH Act for practicing women lawyers. The petition challenges the Bombay High Court ruling that restricted the law to employer-employee relationships.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday sought the response of the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Central government on a petition questioning whether the Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment (PoSH) Act should apply to practicing lawyers [Seema Joshi v. Bar Council of India and ors].
The plea challenges a recent decision of the Bombay High Court, which had refused to direct Bar Councils to set up permanent Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) under the PoSH Act.
The High Court had reasoned that the PoSH Act applies only where an employer-employee relationship exists and held that
“since Bar Councils are not employers of advocates, the PoSH Act cannot generally be made applicable when it comes to law practitioners.”
Lawyer Seema Joshi, through a public interest litigation (PIL), has challenged this view, arguing that
“there is no justification to exclude the legal profession alone from the purview of the anti-sexual harassment law.”
A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan expressed doubts about the use of a PIL under Article 32 against a High Court order. Justice Nagarathna observed,
“You are asking for a stay and setting aside of Bombay High Court order. If you want to achieve something, follow the process. It cannot be an Article 32 plea.”
The petitioner’s counsel clarified that they are not pressing for a stay on the High Court ruling. The Supreme Court then proceeded to seek the responses of the BCI and the Central government on the matter.
The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, which was involved in the Bombay High Court case, was removed from the list of respondent parties.
In her petition, Joshi highlighted that the Supreme Court in Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India had directed the BCI to implement Vishaka guidelines, aimed at preventing sexual harassment in the workplace, across all Bar bodies.
She argued that
“by ignoring this binding precedent, the Bombay High Court’s ruling in the matter is per incuriam.”
The petition also contended that the High Court’s ruling
“strips women advocates of fundamental protections guaranteed by the Constitution of India and the PoSH Act” and warned that unless corrected, it “will erode gender justice within the legal system itself.”
Joshi urged that
“This Hon’ble Court’s intervention is necessary to restore the law’s object, uphold constitutional guarantees, and reaffirm that no woman—least of all a woman advocate in court—can be left without remedy against workplace sexual harassment.”
The petitioner requested the Supreme Court to:
- Declare that the PoSH Act applies to women advocates enrolled with State Bar Councils and practicing before Courts, and that all State Bar Councils and Bar Associations across India are required to comply with the mandate of the PoSH Act;
- Set aside the Bombay High Court’s judgment inasmuch as it restricts the PoSH Act to employees of Bar Councils and Bar Associations only;
- Direct the BCI, State Bar Councils, and Bar Associations to constitute or continue Internal Committees under the PoSH Act to hear complaints of women advocates. The plea notes that several legal bodies, including the Bar Council of Delhi, Delhi High Court Bar Association, and the Supreme Court of India through its 2013 Regulations, have already established Internal Committees under the PoSH Act for advocates;
- Issue guidelines, in continuation of Vishaka and Medha Kotwal Lele, ensuring gender-just redressal mechanisms within the legal profession.
Advocates Ritika Vohra, Amber Tickoo, and Naman Joshi appeared for the petitioner before the Supreme Court.
Case Title:
Seema Joshi v. Bar Council of India and ors
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on PoSH Act
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
