(AI Generated)

The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a writ petition that requests a declaration affirming that the safeguards provided in the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, apply to female lawyers registered with State Bar Councils and engaged in practice before judicial bodies.

The petition also seeks to set aside the Bombay High Court’s July 7, 2025, judgment in UNS Women Legal Association (Regd.) v. Bar Council of India & Ors., which had held that “the provisions of the POSH Act apply where the relationship of employer and employee exists, thus, neither Bar Council of India nor Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa can be said to be employer of advocates.”

While the bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan issued notice in the matter, Justice Nagarathna remarked that the appropriate course of action would be to either initiate a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 or contest the Bombay High Court order via a Special Leave Petition. She clarified that submitting a writ petition to challenge the High Court order is not feasible, and urged that any pursuit of objectives must be conducted in the proper manner. Accordingly, petitioner’s counsel did not press for this prayer. Court noted:

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petition is in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation(PIL) filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the main prayer(s) and the interim prayer ‘a’ are not pressed. Her submission is placed on record. Issue notice to the respondents with regard to the other prayers.

Petitioner has further argued:

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.