What is the POSH Act, 2013?

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 is the Indian law that requires employers to prevent sexual harassment, set up a complaint mechanism and redress complaints in a fair and time-bound manner.

Is an Internal Committee mandatory?

Yes. Under Section 4 of the POSH Act, 2013, every employer with 10 or more employees must constitute an Internal Committee (IC) at each office or branch. Workplaces with fewer than 10 employees are covered by the Local Committee set up by the District Officer.

What is the time limit to file a complaint?

A complaint should be made in writing within 3 months of the incident (or of the last incident in a series). The committee can extend this by another 3 months if circumstances prevented the woman from filing earlier.

How long does a POSH inquiry take?

The Internal Committee must complete its inquiry within 90 days of receiving the complaint and share its report with the employer within 10 days of completing it. The employer must act on the recommendations within 60 days.

Can Poshaw help my organisation comply?

Yes. From policy drafting and IC formation to training and annual reports, we provide end-to-end POSH compliance support. Contact us for a free consultation.

Protecting Women Lawyers: Does the POSH Act Fall Short for Independent Advocates?

The fight against workplace sexual harassment in India achieved a landmark milestone with the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). Yet, a crucial question continues to linger across court corridors: Do independent women advocates have adequate statutory protection against sexual harassment in the legal profession?

A ruling by the Bombay High Court brought this issue into sharp focus, highlighting a significant gap in the legal framework governing women lawyers.

What the Bombay High Court Ruled

In UNS Women Legal Association (Regd.) v. Bar Council of India & Ors. (2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2647, decided July 7, 2025), a Division Bench comprising former Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne addressed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The petitioner sought directions for the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils to establish permanent Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) for women advocates.

The High Court held that:

No Employer–Employee Relationship: Analyzing Sections 2(f), 2(g), 4, and 6 of the POSH Act, the Court held that the statute applies strictly where an employer–employee relationship exists. Because practicing advocates are independent professionals—not employees of the Bar Councils or Bar Associations—the POSH Act does not extend to inter-advocate complaints.
Protection Reserved for Staff: The Court clarified that the POSH Act remains fully applicable to administrative staff directly employed by the Bar Councils or Bar Associations.
Recourse Under the Advocates Act: For grievances involving fellow lawyers, the Court directed aggrieved women to Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which empowers Disciplinary Committees to penalize advocates for "professional or other misconduct."

Why Section 35 of the Advocates Act Is Not an Equivalent Substitute

While Section 35 provides a disciplinary mechanism, traditional disciplinary proceedings fall short of providing a survivor-centric remedy:

Lack of Specialization: Disciplinary Committees primarily address ethical breaches, financial irregularities, and professional misconduct. They lack the specialized, gender-sensitive training required to navigate complex sexual harassment inquiries.
Absence of Mandatory Interim Relief: Under the POSH Act, a complainant can request interim measures—such as restraint orders or reassignment—to prevent continued harassment during an ongoing inquiry. The Advocates Act lacks similar mandatory statutory protections.
Confidentiality Deficits: POSH Act Section 16 mandates strict confidentiality regarding the identities of the complainant and witnesses. General disciplinary inquiries before Bar Councils often lack these robust statutory privacy protections.

The Dynamic Workplace of a Woman Lawyer

Unlike traditional corporate or civil service roles, an advocate’s working environment is fluid. Under Section 2(o) of the POSH Act, a "workplace" includes any location visited during the course of employment. For a woman lawyer, this spans beyond private law chambers to include:

Courtrooms, chambers, and tribunal complexes
Bar Association libraries, lounges, and common rooms
Client meeting locations, mediation centers, and conferences
Virtual courtrooms and electronic communications

Limiting POSH coverage purely to contractual employment status leaves thousands of independent litigators navigating these shared institutional spaces without a specialized, safe redressal forum.

Challenges in the Supreme Court and Legal Reform

The restrictive interpretation of the POSH Act triggered immediate petitions before the Supreme Court of India in Seema Joshi v. Bar Council of India & Ors.. A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan issued notices to the Union Government and the Bar Council of India to examine whether statutory protections must evolve alongside the modern structure of independent professions.

Petitioners argue that excluding independent lawyers defeats the statutory purpose of securing a safe working environment under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution, and ignores earlier precedents like Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2013).

Potential Solutions Under Consideration:

Legislative Amendments: Amending the POSH Act to explicitly cover self-employed, independent, and freelance professionals across sectors.
Dedicated Bar Council Rules: Framing specialized, gender-sensitive Rules under the Advocates Act, 1961, to establish permanent grievance redressal committees across all State Bar Associations and District Courts.
Institutional Court Committees: Establishing permanent gender-harassment committees in court complexes modeled directly after POSH guidelines.

Conclusion

The legal profession cannot champion safe workplaces for the rest of society while leaving its own women professionals without a dedicated, survivor-centric framework. Protecting dignity at work is a constitutional guarantee that should not depend on whether a professional holds an employment contract.

What Do You Think?

Should women advocates have a dedicated sexual-harassment redressal mechanism independent of traditional Bar Council disciplinary panels?