👉 Note:
1. To read this in your preferred language, use the Google Translate feature available at the top-right corner of the page.
2. To listen to this write-up, click on the Read Aloud button! 🎧
3. The Read Aloud feature works best on desktop or laptop devices.
In a ruling that has raised eyebrows across India’s legal and feminist circles, the Bombay High Court on 8th July 2025 held in UNS Women Legal Association v. Bar Council of India & Others that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) does not apply to practicing women advocates.
The Court’s Reasoning
The Court ruled that a Bar Council is not an “employer,” and a practicing advocate is not an “employee” in the legal sense. Therefore, the POSH Act does not mandate Bar Councils to constitute Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) for complaints made by women lawyers against other lawyers.
“There exists no relationship of employer and employee between the Bar Council and a practicing advocate. Therefore, the Bar Council is not obligated to constitute an Internal Complaints Committee under the POSH Act for complaints made by such advocates.”
In other words, a woman advocate who faces harassment from another lawyer inside court premises, in a bar association, or in a senior's chamber is not entitled to protection under the POSH Act—because she is not a formal employee.
The POSH Act's Blind Spot: Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment, while legally sound under the narrow scope of the POSH Act, 2013, exposes a critical flaw—independent professionals like lawyers, doctors, freelancers, and consultants are left unprotected. They aren't “employees” and have no “employer” to set up an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), leaving them outside the Act’s safety net.
This legal void demands urgent reform. Workplace protection must extend beyond formal employment—harassment is real, even without an HR department.
If Not POSH, Then What?
With the POSH Act, 2013 inapplicable to independent professionals such as advocates and doctors, women lawyers are rely on dual legal remedies.However, both legal pathways fall short of offering a confidential, preventive, and survivor-centric redressal mechanism—the very framework that the POSH Act was designed to provide.
Let’s examine each of these remedies in detail:
1. Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961
A woman advocate may file a complaint of “professional misconduct” before the State Bar Council under Section 35. While this provision enables inquiry into an advocate’s conduct, it suffers from serious limitations:
This is a deciplinary law that does not define misconduct clearly or expressly include sexual harassment.
There is no Internal Complaints Committee, no confidentiality safeguards, and no gender-sensitive process.
The procedure is slow, opaque, and often intimidating for complainants appearing before largely male-dominated panels.
2. Criminal Prosecution under the BNS, 2023
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita offers a penal route through provisions such as:
- Section 73 – Sexual remarks or unwelcome contact
- Section 75 – Stalking
- Section 77 – Criminal intimidation with sexual threats
- Section 79 – Outraging the modesty of a woman
- Section 83 – Insulting gestures or words against a woman’s dignity
These provisions allow survivors to initiate police complaints and seek prosecution. However, this route is punitive, emotionally exhausting, and lacks preventive workplace safeguards. It addresses the offence only after it occurs, offering little institutional or emotional support during the process.
Why These Remedies Are Not Enough
Neither the Advocates Act nor the BNS provides the preventive, confidential, and survivor-sensitive safeguards that the POSH Act ensures—such as:
- A structured and confidential inquiry process
- Interim protection during the pendency of a complaint
- A gender-sensitive redressal forum like Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs)
- Employer accountability for maintaining a safe workplace
The Need for POSH Act Reform
Since the POSH Act, 2013 does not extend protection to independent professionals like advocates, doctors, consultants, freelancers, artists, therapists, architects, chartered accountants, and trainers, female professionals must turn to alternative legal routes—neither of which is designed with their specific workplace realities in mind:
Reform is urgent and essential. The law must be amended to:
- Expand the definition of “workplace” to include courts, co-working spaces, studios, and digital platforms.
- Recognize professionals working independently as rightful claimants of protection.
- Create alternative mechanisms—like Local Complaints Committees—with real power, accessibility, and survivor-centric procedures.
True workplace safety cannot be conditional on employment status. The future of work is flexible—our laws must be, too. Reform is not optional—it’s essential.
Final Thoughts
The dual remedy system under the Advocates Act and BNS provides some form of legal recourse, but neither is adequate or tailored to the workplace realities of women in law.
| Case Citation: |
|
UNS Women Legal Association v. Bar Council of India & Others Writ Petition (L) No. 1371 of 2023 Decided on 08.07.2025 by the Division Bench of Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain. |
That’s a wrap for today. I’ll return next week with another judgment that could change the game!
Interested in more updates on Indian law? Subscribe to the blog and never miss a case that could shape the future of India.
Have insights, questions, or experiences to share? Join the conversation in the comments below — your perspective matters!
– Anupama
Stay informed. Stay empowered.
Written by: Anupama Singh | Legal Blogger
The Legal Trifecta: IPR | Cyber Law | Property Law
No comments:
Post a Comment